9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favor of appellant - imposition of redemption fine and penalty upheld - amount to be paid within two months - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/22395/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20824 - Dated:- 23-9-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. V Srinivasan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 07/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, vide which he has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 08/06/2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House, Cochin. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d allowed its redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 3,50,000/- and a penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/-. The appellant took the delivery on payment of the entire amount and thereafter, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 7.1.2014 upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Imports). Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is patently erroneous, contrary to law and is untenable and unsustainable in view of the judgments delivered by various higher judicial fora. He further submitted that the only functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Shivam International (supra) before the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon ble High Court has dismissed the Revenue s appeal vide order dated 02/06/2016 in Customs Appeal No. 7 of 2011, wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed in Paragraph 2 as under : 2. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel and the other counsel, who appeared for the respondents. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal in another case was upheld by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, which judgment as also upheld by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. (MD) 890/2012 and connected cases. It is seen that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade has also issued communica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shivam International (supra). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the case laws cited by both the parties. Since the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivam International (supra) wherein identical issue was involved has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala, therefore, in my considered view that the used Digital Multifunction Machines imported by the appellant are concerned, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not sustainable in law. Therefore, I set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. 7. In this case the appellant also imported 04 Nos. of Analogue Photocopiers and its value has been determined by C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
