9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Policy being not per se photocopiers but multifunctional digital printing photocopiers. The restriction in regard to multifunctional digital copiers came into existence in the year 2012 only. However, since the value has been enhanced and the appellants are not contesting the enhancement of value, we are of the considered view that the redemption fine and penalties cannot be set aside in toto - r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o entertained a view that the said goods are liable for confiscation being restricted items in terms of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy. In Appeal No.C/8/2008, the declared value of ₹ 12,79,185/- was enhanced to ₹ 23,16,281/- and redemption fine of ₹ 6,95,000/- was imposed with equal penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In Appeal No. C/262/2008, the declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed on this count is unjustified. 4. Against this, the learned AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that since the appellants are not contesting the enhancement of value, it is clear that there is mis-declaration of the value of the goods. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalties on this count are sustainable. 5. We have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one lakh only) and personal penalty of ₹ 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) would meet the ends of justice in the case of Appeal No.C/8/2008. Similarly, in the case of Appeal No. C/262/2008, the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and personal penalty is reduced to ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). 6. The appeals are thus partly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
