9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e away their right to appeal on this issue. However, it is found that the enhancement of value in this case was done as per the value estimation done by the Chartered Engineer. The Appellant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate their claim that the value was enhanced arbitrarily. Hence, the enhanced value agreed with and it does not require to interfere with the enhanced value determined in the impugned order. Confiscation of goods - HELD THAT:- The goods imported are used Digital multi function printer, which are not freely importable. Para 2.17 of FTP 2009-14 was amended w.e.f.28.02.2013 and subsequent to the amendment the said goods became importable only against authorization. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al dated 20.05.2013, and rejected the Party s appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant imported old and used Printer cum Multi function Device of Xerox/Canon make from USA vide Bill of Lading No.6053707730 dated 25.03.2013 and filed the Bill of Entry dated 06/05/2013, for clearance of the goods. The value declared was USD 28025/- equivalent to Rs.21,10,438.72/-. While assessing the Bill of Entry, the assessing officer rejected the transaction value and enhanced the same to USD 38617.36/- on the basis of report and opinion from Chartered Engineer. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,06,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They cited the decision of Digitech Photocopier Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2009(233)ELT 425 (Tri- Mum) in support of their contention. 5. Regarding redemption fine and penalty imposed, they stated that the redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000/- is more than 30% of the declared value, which is very harsh. In the case of Navpad Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, Tribunal, Bangalore has held that Redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% is reasonable and the Appellate authorities cannot deviate from the decisions. 6. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is related to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s amended w.e.f.28.02.2013 and subsequent to the amendment the said goods became importable only against authorization. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 06/05/2013, ie, after 28.02.2013 and hence the goods were restricted goods. Since the Appellant was not having any authorization, the goods were liable for confiscation. Accordingly, we find that the goods were rightly confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on redemption fine. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of confiscation of the goods. 11. Regarding the quantum of redemption fine imposed , we observe that in the case of M/s Navpad Enterprises, reported in 2009(235) ELT 376 (Tri-Ban), affirmed by Hon ble Kerala High Court , it has been held that fine upto 10% and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
