9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tom House Versus M/s. City Office Equipment and others [2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that there is no restriction on free import of second hand digital multifunction print and copier machines prior to 05.06.2012 - the impugned order is modified by setting aside, the redemption fine and penalty imposed without disturbing the enhancement of value - appeal allowed in part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, however, option was given to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 7,80,000/- under Section 125 ibid. A penalty of ₹ 2,60,000/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Advocate, Shri A.K. Jayaraj, submits that such machines became restrict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of City Office Equipment (supra). Following the same, we hold that the imported goods in question are not restricted item. We find during the relevant period the impugned goods were not restricted and the adjudicating authority has invoked only Section 111 (d) to hold that goods are liable for confiscation. Hence the imposition of redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
