9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- This report was not collected behind the back of the appellant but the assessment itself was done in the presence of the appellant. We, therefore, find no force in this argument. Therefore, on the questions of value and assessment of duty, we find in favour of the department. Redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no hard and fast rule regarding imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 as long as it does not exceed the market value of the goods. In the present case, the value of the goods is around ₹ 5 lakhs and the redemption find imposed is about ₹ 70,000/-. The appellant has made out a case to get the redemption fine reduced to some extent. Correspondingly, the penalty imposed upon the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 750/- only. As this price appeared to be too small and not consistent with the price of similar goods imported, the department took up the matter for investigation and the goods were re-examined and re-assessed by an empanelled Chief Engineer Shri B. Murali Krishna of M/s American Quality Services Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad. He re-examined the goods and re-assessed the value at ₹ 4,93,810/- after considering a depreciation of 70% because the goods were imported after use. He also took on record the value 11 cartridges which were also found in the copiers but whose value was not taken into account by the M/s Subha Syndicate in their report. After recording the statements of the concerned persons and investigating the matter a show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The representative of the appellant submits that it is true that they imported the 53 copiers in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy in asmuch as they did not have a license to import the goods. He submits that he is not disputing that the copiers were liable to be confiscated and they were liable to penalty. However, it is his submission on this count that the redemption fine of ₹ 70,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority is excessive and it may be restricted to 10% of the value of the goods as has generally been the practice. He further submits that the penalty under Section 112 may also be restricted to 5% of the value of the goods as has been the general practice. He vehemently contested the valuation of the goods. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference. For the same reasons, he asserts that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority also needs to be upheld without any change. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The only points of dispute to be decided are: a) whether the department was correct in re-assessing the value of the imported photo copiers b) whether the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority was excessive c) whether the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was excessive It is not in dispute that the appellant has imported the goods in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and therefore the same were liable for confiscation and appellant was liable for penalty. M/s Subha Syndicate the Charte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erage estimated market value on C F basis arrived taking into consideration present market value of new machines and applicable depreciation. S. No Make Model Nos. Qty Present Est. Market price of similar machine per unit in RS.(C F) Estimated Price per Unit in Rs. Total in Rs.(C F) 1 Xerox Work Centre Pro 416/ 416-P/ 416-S 53 32,000 9,600 5,08,800 Consumables: 2 Cartridge (DC- 440) 1 Lumpsum 1,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this engineer had confirmed the value of the goods based on the market value of similar goods and taking into account the value of the cartridges after excluding the damaged cartridges. Therefore, we find that the department was correct in reckoning this value for calculating the customs duty payable. On the submission of the appellant that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Chartered Engineer, we find that this report was not collected behind the back of the appellant but the assessment itself was done in the presence of the appellant. We, therefore, find no force in this argument. Therefore, on the questions of value and assessment of duty, we find in favour of the department. As far as redemption fine and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
