9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situation, it is only proper that this matter is adjudicated afresh by the adjudicating authority. Matter is remanded to adjudicating authority for a fresh decision - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - Appeal No.C/48/2011 - FINAL ORDER No.40629/2013 - Dated:- 4-10-2013 - Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellant : Ms. Ramya, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. The appellant imported four new motor cycles and filed Bill of Entry No.687552 dt.07-03-08 at Custom House, Chennai. The appellant had declared the value of the goods to be Rs.12,40,493/-. The goods were subjected to first check examination. Revenue was of the view that the goods were of Japanese Origin but imported from USA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected the contention of the importer and held that importer had violated licensing note 2 (ii) (v). Further, importer had not complied with the provisions of licensing 2 (ii) (c) (i) since he did not produce valid type approval certificate. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and the appellant was given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Further, a penalty of Rs.12,000/- was imposed on the appellant under section 112 (a)of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the order, Revenue filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for enhancement of fine and penalty. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... norms. The subject motorcycle was manufactured to comply with U.S. EPA exhaust emission standards applicable to 2008 model year of new motorcycles. It is also complaint with Euro III and Tier II regulations exhaust or evaporative emission standards as specified by EU Norms. We thank you for choosing SUZUKI Best Regards Sd.. Jeffrey L.Linl Certificate Manager Government Relations Department." 6. Since final assemblywas done in U.S.A., the contention of the appellant is that there is no mis-declaration regarding country of origin. He submits that for vehicles manufactured in U.S.A., there is no designated authority for issue of COP certificate and therefore the requirement for producingCOP certificate is a condition impossible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Japan and assembled in USA and it is imported basically for its fancy value. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed is very low as compared to the assessable value of the goods. He submits that though Commissioner (Appeals) could have decided fine and penalty, it would be desirable if the adjudicating authority does the job because he has got better wherewithal to make enquiries in this regard. 9. I have considered submissions on both sides. I do not find anything wrong in the finding that the goods were liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority also appear to be very low as compared to the assessable value of the prohibited goods. In suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
