9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cases are not excess keeping in view the past conduct of the appellants. The goods imported are rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The appellant had a mens rea in importing repeatedly the same thing knowing well that it is not permitted under the law. Therefore, the redemption fine and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant, M/s Office Devices, imported certain used P4 computer system and CRT monitors and the appellant, M/s Shivam International, imported certain used hard disk drives and used processors (CPU). On arrival of the goods in Customs House, Cochin, the appellants filed Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appellants appeals and upheld the Order-in-Originals. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in these cases, imposition of redemption fine and the penalty is exorbitant. He further submitted that he is not questioning the confiscation but he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same thing knowing well that it is not permitted under the law. Therefore, the redemption fine and the penalty should be upheld. 5. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the appellants, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in imposing the rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
