9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 4 lakhs ₹ 2 lakhs 2. C/155/2010 SVS Copiers C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 3. C/162/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 2 lakhs ₹ 1 lakh 4. C/163/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 5. C/165/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 6. C/164/2010 Royal Traders C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 7. C/173/2010 C.C., Hyderabad Copier Marketing Corpn. 8. C/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties and that the orders passed by the original authority are ab initio invalid. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) also are infructuous. He also submits that the jurisdiction of officers to pass orders can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings as held in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dhanversha Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut - [2010 (261) E.L.T. 851 (Tri.- Del.)]. 3.2 Alternatively, he submits that the redemption fines imposed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) are arbitrary and not based on market enquiry determining the profit margins involved. Such exercise of power in fixing redemption fines and penalties are not to be upheld. In this regard, he relies on several decisions, particularly, in the case of Shri Ambalal Expo Inc. v. C.C., Chennai - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 346 (Tri.-Chennai) and Shankar Trading Co. v. C.C. - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 456 (Tri.). 3.3 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 Appeal Manufacturing v. C.C.E. C (A), Hyderabad - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) Sophisticated Marble Granite Industries v. C.C., Mumbai [2004 (165) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-Mum.)]. 5. I have carefully considered submissions from both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue regarding lack of 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 licence 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-function print and copier machines along with accessories and attachments . In the present cases, the imported items are old and used multi-functional copier machines . Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the present cases. Undisputedly the impugned goods have already been disposed off and, therefore, the veracity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the appellate authorities including 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 under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Such a prescription will lead to flooding of prohibited and restricted items into the market which cannot be permitted. However, it is not to say that the discretion can be exercised by the original authority or Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tribunal arbitrarily or mechanically. In the present cases, undisputedly the consignments were subject to valuation by approved chartered engineers. Therefore the comparison of the declared value to the value ascertained by the chartered engineer clearly gives an indication of profit margins. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be said that the redemption fine has been imposed without any basis or without conducting any enquiry. Regarding the claim on behalf of M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation that they placed an order for 600 pieces which they imported in different lots and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
