9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t restricted items - issue is settled laying down that subsequent introduction of the restriction on import cannot act prejudice to the imports already initiated. As such, we find that confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty on this count is not justified - Following decision of Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1990 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Paras Textiles v. CC, New Delhi [2008 (9) TMI 746 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Om Petro Chemical v. Union of India [2001 (12) TMI 306 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- both the appellants are not challenging the same inasmuch as the differential duty is much on the lower side. As such, we find that the importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposed. The Revenue also disputed the correct value of the said machines and took the opinion of the Chartered Engineer, inasmuch as the appellant had not produced the opinion of the overseas Chartered Engineer in respect of the value of the said machines. Accordingly, the value was enhanced from Rs. 18,62,152/- to Rs. 26,58,825/-. Thus, the customs duty liable to be paid by the appellant was enhanced from Rs. 3,13,854/- to Rs. 4,48,129/-. The order of the original Adjudicating Authority, imposing penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000/- was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) except that the redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000/- was reduced to Rs. 12,00,000/-. 2. As regards the facts available in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) has held that the restriction imposed subsequent to the loading of the goods cannot act as prejudice to the importers claim and cannot be made the reason for confiscation of the goods or for imposition of penalties. The said decision stand followed by the Tribunal in the case of Paras Textiles v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-Del.). Another reference can be made to Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Om Petro Chemical v. Union of India reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 353 (Del.). As such, we find that the issue is settled laying down that subsequent introduction of the restriction on import cannot act prejudice to the imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
