2009 (6) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- No. 2/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 3,58,911/ Rs. 61,000/- C/300/2009 M/s. Maa Tara Enterprises 6/2008 Rs. 14,98,265/- Rs. 3,53,000/- Rs. 71,000/- No. 3/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 3,45,145/ Rs. 71,000/- C/301/2009 M/s. Methodox Inc. 13/2008 Rs. 13,46,471/- Rs. 4,04,000/- Rs. 68,000/- No. 4/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 3,47,120/-Rs. 68,000/- C/302/2009 M/s. Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises 5/2008 Rs. 12,85,957/- Rs. 3,86,000/- Rs. 65,000/- No. 5/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 3,38,856/- Rs. 65,000/- C/303/2009 M/s. Bhawani Enterprises 12/2008 Rs. 13,83,822/- Rs. 4,85,000/- Rs. 70,000/- No. 6/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 4,71,786/-Rs. 70,000/- C/304/2009 M/s. Ramdev Enterprise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ineer submitted the valuation. All the appellants herein accepted the said valuation and discharged the duty liability as has been arrived by the adjudicating authority. Since the goods were misdeclared, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that they are liable for confiscation under provision of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rules 3(2) and 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and confiscated the same. However, he gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine as indicated herein above and also imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by such an order, all the appellants moved to ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not declared correct value and also violated the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09. 5. I have considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, I find that the adjudicating authority while confiscating the imported photocopiers, has come to a conclusion that there is a violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, which restricts the import of the used photocopiers. He has also held that there is misdeclaration of the value and he confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. On appeal, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the confiscation and penalty, reduced the redemption fine on the following findings: - "9...........

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pass the following order." 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has come to a conclusion that the imposition of fine and penalty would depend on the nature of the offence and recurrence of the same. In other words, he is holding that the appellants are habitual offenders and hence he has reduced the redemption fine to 35% while upholding the entire amount of penalty. To my mind this approach is not in consonance with the settled law, as original adjudicating authority has not come to such conclusion. At the first appeal stage, this cannot be considered as a reason for imposition of fine and penalty if the appellant is not put to notice. In this case, all the appellants were not put ....