2013 (11) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal). As facts and circumstances are the same, these appeals have been taken up together for adjudication. 2. For convenience and clarity of the matter in dispute, facts of Customs Appeal No.8 of 2012 are being examined. 3. The appellant M/s Bhagwan Electro Photo Copiers, New Delhi, imported 92 low duty and 16 medium duty "Old & used mainframes of digital copy printers assemblies consisting of functional gears, feeding rod, fixing rollers, clutches, ADF, Sorters & trolley etc.". The appellant filed bill of entry No.001 dated 22.1.2007 declaring value of low duty machines and medium duty machines as US$ 150 per set and US$ 175 per set respectively. The respondents vide their order of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the parties while going through the paper books. 9. The main argument addressed by counsel for the appellant is that articles imported were not restricted goods, and even otherwise, the Tribunal had not maintained uniformity in assessing value of the articles as also in imposing of redemption fine and penalty. 10. At the outset, it may be noticed that the goods were got released by the importer on payment of redemption fine etc. apparently to save cost of detention and demurrage as also to save goods from deterioration in value and quality. When the entire matter is gauged from the very beginning, it is found that the plea that goods imported by the appellants were not restricted goods had never been taken before the adjudicatory o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g imported, those were impounded and were released only on payment of fine and penalty, imposition of which varies from case to case and no strait-jacket standard formula is possible to be adopted. It is urged that imposition of redemption fine and final penalty even otherwise has to be prohibitive so as to dissuade import of restricted goods and to make it prohibitive and non-profitable. 15. When facts and circumstances are gone through, it transpires that cases are not lacking where redemption fine and penalty had been reduced to 10% and 5% respectively of the value of goods assessed by the authorities. 16. Counsel for the appellant has made reference to Selection Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2008 (232) E.L.T. ....