9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent had imported 128 units of used Multifunction machines and filed Bill of Entry No. 2881961 dt. 17.08.2017 declaring the value as USD 26795 equivalent to Rs.17,66,566/-. Goods were subjected to examination by DGFT approved Chartered Engineer and vide report dated 23.10.2017, the Charted Engineer assessed the value of the goods as Rs.21,98,071/-. Alleging violation of various provisions of law, the Adjudication Authority issued the order on 17.01.2020, whereby ordered absolute confiscation of the goods. For the alleged violation, the Adjudication Authority imposed penalty of Rs.21,98,071/- under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. It is further submitted that, in view of the findings given by the Appellate Authority and this Tribunal in similar cases, the impugned order of remand made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without specified the fine and penalty is unsustainable. Further submitted that inspite of specific finding from various appellate forums, there was undue delay of more than 06 years in releasing the goods. Hence respondent also prays for issuing a direction for waiver of detention/demurrage charge. 5. In response to the submission on remanding the issue for ascertaining the market value and to determine the redemption fine, Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the matter of M/s S.R. Enterprises this Tribunal considered the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter had suffered huge losses due to undue delay in clearing the goods due to such remand order. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of any finding regarding market value of the goods in the impugned order, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs Office Devices - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 336 (Ker.) is squarely applicable in this case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that on very same issue, in the matters of M/s Photofax Systems vs. CC, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20728/2023 dt. 24.07.2023 and M/s City Office Equipment vs. CC, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20729/2023 dt. 24.07.2023, this Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the Final Order No. 20844/2020 dated 15.12.2020 in the case of M/s Accord Digitech Vs C.C. Bangalore passed by this Tribunal, it is clearly evident that the used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine were released on payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value of the imported goods. This was also followed by this Bench in the case of M/s S.R. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20762-20763/2021 dated 23.09.2021 wherein the redemption fine and penalty was 10% and 5% of the enhanced assessable value. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs Office Devices (Supra) is also squarely applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
