2017 (8) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olicy without a license as it was restricted item, therefore the appellant has violated the Foreign Trade Policy and therefore, both the authorities have imposed fine and penalty which in my opinion is not exorbitant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/2489/2010-SM - 21025/2017 - Dated:- 6-7-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Augustian P.A, Advocate - For the Appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant accepted the valuation to avoid the litigation and demurrage charges. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner vide the Order-in-Original assessed the value of the goods as USD 41,535 and confiscated the imported goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. Further, appellant was given option to redeem the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tocopier. He also submitted that the imported goods are not prohibited goods but they only fall in the category of restricted goods and the appellants are small time traders. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the photocopier machine was a restricted item during the relevant period and the appellants were not authorized to import the same without .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X