TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alties, the lower appellate authority has upheld the confiscation of the impugned goods imported by the respondents without valid import licences. Relevant extract from one such common order dealing with four such cases is reproduced below :- "As regards licensing, the plea of the appellants is that although photocopiers are restricted under the EXIM policy, the goods imported by them are multifunction machines, which are classified under different headings of 8443.31 and 8443.39 of the Customs Tariff respectively, hence when the department has accepted classification under 8443.31 as multifunction machines, the goods cannot be treated as photocopiers for the purpose of licensing aspect alone. As per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Pol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect also." 3. The learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal argues at length and states that having upheld the confiscation of the impugned goods, the lower appellate authority was not correct in reducing the fines and penalties which were not excessive or arbitrary and were appropriate in respect of repeated imports of the same goods by the same importers without import licence and in violation of the Government's policy. She refers to the detailed order passed by the Tribunal in respect of one of the respondents herein among others justifying appropriate levels of fines and penalties in cases of repeated offenders vide Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Sagar Enterprises - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 101. The following Table gives details of redemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../154/2010 1653993 496000/30 414000/25 248500/15 83000/5 M/s. Vaman Trading 14. C/156/2010 1714754 514000/30 429000/25 258000/15 86000/5 15. C/157/2010 1269008 380000/30 317000/25 191000/15 64000/5 M/s. Copier Company 16. C/155/2010 1650348 495000/30 412000/25 248000/15 83000/5 4. Shri P. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents inter alia submits that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2011-TIOL-851-CESTAT- BANG has held that no licence is required for the import of the digital multifunctio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fines and penalties. The Department is only in appeal against the reduction in the amounts of fines and penalties. 6. As regards the levels of fines and penalties, a detailed order has been recorded by this Bench in the case of Sagar Enterprises (supra) wherein the cited decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sai Copiers (supra) has been taken note of Finally, it has been decided, for the detailed reasons stated therein which need not be repeated here again, that in respect of repeated offences fines and penalties imposed to prevent illegal imports and to effectively implement the Import Policy laid down by the Government have to be upheld if such fines and penalties are not unreasonable or arbitrary. It has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led appeals as in these cases. 8. As regards the argument relating to the margin of profit, if the respondents had a grievance in this regard they should have questioned the same or should have pleaded before the lower appellate authority for remanding the matter to the original authority for determination of the same. Without filing an appeal in the Tribunal, the plea made by the respondents in this regard cannot also be considered. Further, the respondents themselves are admitting existence of oral enquiries by the customs authorities in this regard. In any case, I find that the original authority has imposed fines in the range of 20% to 30% only which appear to be reasonable and not arbitrary. The fact that the respondents have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iff currently. (iv) The import policy restriction in regard to photocopiers is in general terms and not restricted to any specific Headings of the HS based Tariff and ITC Schedule. (v) It does not take into account the fact that the photocopiers are classifiable under different Tariff Heading and Sub-headings. (vi) It does not take into account the fact that the printing function is integral to the photocopier without which the photocopy cannot be produced. (vii) It fails to take judicial notice of the fact that the impugned goods are commonly known as photocopiers and their primary use is for photocopying. As such, the confiscation of these machines imported without valid licen....