9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le - there was no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The redemption fine imposed by the Tribunal cannot be taken as truly binding precedents and the same may be taken at the most only as guidelines - If a restricted import takes place repeatedly the hands of the adjudicating authority cannot be tied by prescribing a lower limit than the statutory limits prescribed u/s125 - Such a prescription will lead to flooding of prohibited and restricted items into the market which cannot be permitted – the discretion can be exercised by the original authority or Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tribunal arbitrarily or mechanically. - Appeal No. ST/Misc/370/2012, ST/St/1771/ 2011, ST/2866/2011 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Heard both sides extensively. 4.1. The assesses imported used multi-functional copiers along with accessories and classified the same under 84433100. All these consignments were subject to examination by approved chartered engineers. The values of the consignments were enhanced based on the chartered engineer s certificates. The appellants have accepted the classification and enhanced value and paid duty. There is no dispute on this issue either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.2. The original authority confiscated the consignment and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties. 4.3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation and li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly, in the case of Sri Ambalal Expo Inc. Vs. CC, Chennai [2003 (155) E.L.T. 346 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Shankar Trading Co. Vs. CC [1999 (106) E.L.T. 456 (T)]. 5.3. He further submits that the redemption fines and penalties imposed exceeded the bench mark rate of 10% redemption fine and 5% penalty as held in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Big Apple Manufacturing Vs. CCE C (A) Hyderabad [2009 (237) E.L.T. 519 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 5.4. In addition, he submits that the Foreign Trade Policy for the year 2009 to March 2014 as applicable w.e.f. 05.06.2012 has specifically included photocopier machines/Digital Multifunction Print Copying Machines under the restricted category. As a result, for the earlier period such machines cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. 7.2. The issue regarding lack jurisdiction on the part of original authority has been raised on behalf of the importers for the first time before the Tribunal. This has been raised based on the submissions that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International (supra) is applicable to them and the goods imported by them did not require a license and, therefore, the consignments should not have been subjected to adjudication and redemption fines and penalties should not have been imposed. On a close reading of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International, it is seen that the same related to old and used digital multi-functional copier machines. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal photocopiers are restricted only w.e.f. 05.06.2012 and not earlier has to be considered in the light of facts of the present case. From the available records no reliable evidence have been produced that the multi-functional photocopiers were Digital Multi-functional photocopiers. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered at this stage. 8.2. Learned advocate on behalf of the importers, as an alternative, was seeking further reduction in redemption fines and penalties. He relied on several decisions of the Tribunal where in respect of import of photocopiers redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods imported have been sustained. The claim of the learned advocate is that in the case of Royal Traders, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of profit margins. Therefore, in the present cases it cannot be said that the redemption fines have been imposed without any basis or without conducting any enquiry. 9.2. From the above, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken all relevant facts into account and used his discretion to reduce the redemption fines and penalties. The quantum of redemption fines and penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be considered either to be excessive or on the lower side. The amounts of fines and penalties determined are reasonable. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. In view of the above, the appeals by the parties as well as by the department are rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
