1998 (7) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd., herein appellants imported excimer laser for use in their own clinic; that the impugned goods are freely importable without a licence; that they are no regular importers and exporters; that the issue regarding the import was discussed with the State Bank of India (SBI) who opened the Letter of Credit but never advised the appellants regarding obtaining an Importer Exporter Code; that even the Customs House Agent engaged for clearance of the goods did not advise them to obtain the code. The Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the Excimer Laser under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and ordered redemption on payment of fine Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed a personal penalty holding that the impugned goods were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en arrived at is not sustainable as held in Pradeep C.H. Saha v. Addl. Collector reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 525 (Cal.). He further contended that they were exempted from obtaining the code as per provision of Para 4.6 of Hand Book of Procedures 1997-2002, persons importing or exporting goods for their personal use not connected with trade or manufacture or agriculture are exempted from obtaining code numbering; that the company is a legal person and the Excimer Laser was imported for personal use. He finally contended that the penalty can be imposed only for contentious conduct as held in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159); that no penalty is imposable for bona fide errors, negligence or lapses if there is no....