TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on set) and sought clearance against the additional licence. Adjudicating Authority held that the items were not spares but complete instruments in themselves and not covered against the licence and accordingly, ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the goods and payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 3. Arguing for the appellants Sh. V.S. Nankani, ld. Advocate submitted that he will not argue on merits since the case is covered against the party vide Tribunal's order No. A/665/93-NRB, dated 1-9-1993. Similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the very appellants' case and it was decided against the party upholding the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, he is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have imposed even penalty in addition to the fine. Since the Tribunal has already decided the case against the party and party has been repeatedly committing an offence, no lenient view was called for in the present case. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. Tribunal in the earlier order, after taking into consideration that similar goods were imported at different places in India and in some cases have been treated as spares both for the purpose of assessment as also for the purpose of release against additional licence issued to Export House and in some other cases lenient view has been taken in imposing redemption fine by cautioning them reduced the redemption fine. But on merits it was held that parts/spares were imported b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truments and spare parts of Combination Square Set. But on examination it was found that there were complete instruments. The Collector has found that importation was not covered by a valid Import Licence and imposed fine and penalty. He has confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 2,49,965. CIF and has allowed them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- only but has refrained from imposing penalty. 8. During the hearing, the appellants has not contested the order on merits but merely requested for a lenient view. 9. Ld. Counsel's submission that they had already opened a letter of credit does not help the importers inasmuch as opening of Letter of Credit does not mean they were at liberty to wrongly describe the goods. Lette....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd Member :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether a lenient view was required to be taken and fine was required to be reduced or the appeal was required to be rejected". Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (Judicial) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President The point of difference in the above matter is referred to Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (Technical). Sd/- (Harish Chander) President Dated : 15-2-1994 [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The point of difference shall be listed for hearing on 26-4-1994 at 2 p.m. Notice to be given to all concerned. DIFFERENCE OF OPINION 13. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The following point of difference of opinion has been referred to me :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that lenient view was taken in the earlier case and, therefore, lenient view may be taken in the present case as the circumstances were identical. Opposing this plea, the ld. SDR submitted that the circumstances were not similar inasmuch as while importing the consignment in the instant case. The appellant fully knew that the import of the goods as spares was being objected to by the Customs Authorities and, therefore should have obtained a licence for the import of the goods before placing such order. The ld. SDR, therefore, submitted that this tendency of importing the goods repeatedly in violation of the provisions of Import Policy should have been curbed by imposition of penalty and that the Adjudicating Authority has already shown utm....