2006 (11) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and allowing the applications for early disposal of appeals, we take up the appeals for final disposal. 2. We have examined the records. It appears that the appellants imported second-hand photocopiers in July 2006 without import licence and claimed clearance for home consumption under OGL. This claim was based on a premise that the goods were 'capital goods' and hence did not require any import licence. The adjudicating authority found the machines to be 'consumer goods' and, accordingly, ordered confiscation thereof under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, giving an option to the importers for redeeming the goods on payment of fine. In the case of M/s. N.K. Enterprises, learned Commissioner determined the fine to be Rs. 6 l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 in Customs Appeal No. 11/2006 [2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Ker.)], wherein the same issue was decided in favour of the Revenue on detailed reasoning. It is also pointed out that the imports in question were made after the decision of the Kerala High Court and, therefore, it is not open to the appellants to raise any plea of bona fide belief. Both sides have also addressed the challenge in these appeals against the quanta of fine and penalty. Ld. Counsel has relied on an order passed by one of us [Final Order No.522/2006 in Appeal No. C/243/2005] in the case of Sooraj Graphics v. CCE Coimbatore, reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal) = 2006 (136) ECR 342 (Tri.-Chennai)], wherein, in an apparently similar case, it was held that the quantum....