9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 and allowed the goods on imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 4,18,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,49,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal by the respondent, the lower appellate authority has reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,10,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,30,000/-. Hence, Revenue filed the present appeal against the reduction of redemption fine and penalty. 2. The Ld. AR iterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the impugned import is the third one and the respondents were committing it repetitively, since the goods are restricted and confiscation was upheld under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, the respondents have not contested the confiscation. He submits that reduction in redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption fine and penalty. It is seen that the appellants cleared identical goods repetitively and the impugned import is the third one. Further, it is seen that as contented by the Ld. Advocate, on the question of whether the imported goods are restricted item or freely importable prior to 28.02.2013, has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras Order dated 14.03.2013 in the case of CC Vs. City Office Equipments & Others - 2014 (302) E.L.T. 212 (Mad.) in W.A (MD) Nos. 890 to 894, 949 to 961 and 1170 to 1188/2012. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court decision is reproduced as under:- "24. The Foreign Trade Policy and the procedure relevant to us is the one laid down in the policy covering the period 2009-2014. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the learned single Judge. We have already held that there is no conflict between the policy and the procedure laid down. Read in the context of the choice laid down for compliance by an importer as spoken to in para 2.17 of the policy, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Director General of Foreign Trade." The High Court has held that the Digital Multifunction printing and photocopying machines are restricted items as per amended para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy only w.e.f. 28.03.2013. Whereas, the impugned import was made on 05.08.2009. In view of the Hon'ble High Court Order above, the impugned order reducing the redemption fine and penalty is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
