9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER B.S. WALIA, J. Vide this appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') the Appellant seeks quashing of order dated 28.6.2013 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing Appeal No.688 of 2008 filed by it while partially allowing the appeal of the respondent. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that against value declared by the appellant of imported consignment of old and used photocopier machines at ₹ 10,56,473/-, vide bill of entry No.0017, dated 30.1.2008, the respondent on the basis of inquiry formed an opinion that the consignment consisted of different canon made model, that the value of the goods as per contemporaneous import data should be ₹ 16,00,653/- and since the appellant had imported machines without getting licence from the authorities as required for import of second hand photocopier machines the same being restricted items in terms of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2004-2009), therefore, the goods were liable for confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicy, (notification No.I(RE-2012)/2009-14) that the DGFT put digital copier under the category of restricted goods. The instant case period involved was much prior to 5.6.2012, therefore, the restriction imposed vide notification dated 5.6.2012 was not applicable. The Tribunal while relying on its earlier decision in the case of Unitech Enterprises(Supra) had totally ignored the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-import), 2013(289) ELT 423 (Mad.), wherein it had been held that digital multi functional print and copying machines fell under the category of restricted goods w.e.f. 5.6.2012 and that the restriction was operative prospectively only. Lastly, it was argued that without prejudice to the aforementioned submissions, fine and penalty equal to 100% of the value of the goods had been imposed, but the decision of the learned Tribunal as upheld by this Court as well as the decision of the Madras High Court, wherein the learned Tribunal had imposed penalty and fine not more than 20% of the assessed value had been ignored, that although fine and penalty were the discretion of the authorities, but it was settled law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... piers were normally purchased by small scale entrepreneurs or unemployed youths to earn their livelihood and that old and used photocopiers were cheaply available in the market. However, in this view of the matter, imposition of fine ₹ 8.00 lacs and penalty of ₹ 8.00 lacs was wholly unjustified and unwarranted and the order by the Tribunal required to be modified on the ground of the same being unduly, harsh and unjustified. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent-Department, it was urged that imposing of redemption fine and penalty had compulsorily to be prohibitive so as to dissuade import of restricted goods and to make the same prohibitive and non-profitable. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that in view of his statement dated October 16, 2014, he confined his plea to reduction of redemption fine and penalty. Thus, the main grievance of the appellant is of there being no uniformity in imposition of fine and penalty by the Tribunal and even in the cases of similar situated importers different yardsticks had been applied and that imposition of fine had been so heavy that it made the cost of the goods prohibitive causing great loss to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine at 15 per cent and penalty under Section 112(a) at 5 per cent of the value of the goods, which factum has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the department. In the above said view of the matter, we find no question of law, much less a substantial question for entertaining these appeals. Hence the appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2007 in C.N. A. No.127 to 130 of 2008 are also dismissed. This Court in Customs Appeal No.14 of 2011 (M/s BE Office Automation Products Limited, Baddi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon), decided on 18.11.2013, held as under:- 16. Counsel for the appellant has made reference to Selection Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2008 (232) E.L.T. Customs Appeal No.14 of 2011 -5- 755 (Tri. Bang), Rex Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata 2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. Bang) and Bhavani Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (262) E.L.T. 536. In the last case, it was ordered that redemption fine shall not be in excess of 15% of the value of imported goods, whereas penalty of 5% of value on imported goods as certified by cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
