9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, the Tribunal). As facts and circumstances are the same, these appeals have been taken up together for adjudication. 2. For convenience and clarity of the matter in dispute, facts of Customs Appeal No.8 of 2012 are being examined. 3. The appellant M/s Bhagwan Electro Photo Copiers, New Delhi, imported 92 low duty and 16 medium duty "Old & used mainframes of digital copy printers assemblies consisting of functional gears, feeding rod, fixing rollers, clutches, ADF, Sorters & trolley etc.". The appellant filed bill of entry No.001 dated 22.1.2007 declaring value of low duty machines and medium duty machines as US$ 150 per set and US$ 175 per set respectively. The respondents vide their order of 14.3.2007 taking into account declared val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The main argument addressed by counsel for the appellant is that articles imported were not restricted goods, and even otherwise, the Tribunal had not maintained uniformity in assessing value of the articles as also in imposing of redemption fine and penalty. 10. At the outset, it may be noticed that the goods were got released by the importer on payment of redemption fine etc. apparently to save cost of detention and demurrage as also to save goods from deterioration in value and quality. When the entire matter is gauged from the very beginning, it is found that the plea that goods imported by the appellants were not restricted goods had never been taken before the adjudicatory or appellate authorities. Even otherwise, claim of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from case to case and no strait-jacket standard formula is possible to be adopted. It is urged that imposition of redemption fine and final penalty even otherwise has to be prohibitive so as to dissuade import of restricted goods and to make it prohibitive and non-profitable. 15. When facts and circumstances are gone through, it transpires that cases are not lacking where redemption fine and penalty had been reduced to 10% and 5% respectively of the value of goods assessed by the authorities. 16. Counsel for the appellant has made reference to Selection Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2008 (232) E.L.T. 755 (Tri. Bang), Rex Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata 2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. Bang) and Bhavani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be bad or improper. It also remains a fact that for release of the goods, the appellant had to pay detention and demurrage charges which also entailed cost of legal expenses etc.. The very purpose of imposition of redemption fine is to wipe out the element of profit on import of restricted goods. In the cases in hand, element of wiping of profit in the interface of expenditure incurred on detention and demurrage charges as also in defraying of legal expenses and interest, was also required to be considered. The Tribunal did not consider these aspects at all and just side-tracked the entire issue by holding that on making payment of disputed amount, the goods had been released to the importer. 19. Sequelly, redemption fine is redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
