AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/2010 SVS Copiers C.C., Hyderabad Rs. 3 lakhs Rs. 1.5 lakhs 3. C/162/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad Rs. 2 lakhs Rs. 1 lakh 4. C/163/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad Rs. 3 lakhs Rs. 1.5 lakhs 5. C/165/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad Rs. 3 lakhs Rs. 1.5 lakhs 6. C/164/2010 Royal Traders C.C., Hyderabad Rs. 3 lakhs Rs. 1.5 lakhs 7. C/173/2010 C.C., Hyderabad Copier Marketing Corpn. 8. C/443/2010 C.C., Hyderabad Copier Marketing Corpn. 9. C/2118/2010 C.C., Hyderabad Copier Marketing Corpn. 10. C/2119/2010 C.C., Hyderabad Royal Traders 2.1 In the assessees' appeals, the facts involved, are that they imported used multi-functional copiers along with accessories and classified the same under 8443 31 00. All these consignments were subject to examination by approved chartered engineers. The values of the consignments were enhanced based on the chartered engineers' certificates. The appellants have accepted the classification and enhan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpo Inc. v. C.C., Chennai - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 346 (Tri.-Chennai) and Shankar Trading Co. v. C.C. - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 456 (Tri.). 3.3 He further submits that the redemption fines and penalties imposed exceeded the bench mark rate of 10% redemption fine and 5% penalty as held in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Big Appeal Manufacturing v. C.C.E. & C (A), Hyderabad - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 519 (Tri.-Bang). 3.4 In the cases of M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation, he also challenges the findings of the Commissioner that they have repeatedly violated the provisions of Exim policy by importing the photocopiers without the requisite licences. It is his submission that they ordered for 600 pieces of photocopiers in March, 2009 and the same were imported in several consignments and having placed the order, they were bound to import them failing which they would be put to heavy financial loss. Such cases of imports in different lots of goods based on single order cannot be treated as repeated violations as held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Pune v. Dipen Enterprises [2003 (160) E.L.T. 632 (Tri.-Mum.)]. 4.1 Learned DR strongly supports the orders of the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reading of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International, it is seen that the same related to "old and used digital multi-function print and copier machines along with accessories and attachments". In the present cases, the imported items are "old and used multi-functional copier machines". Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the present cases. Undisputedly the impugned goods have already been disposed off and, therefore, the veracity of the claim that the photocopiers imported by them are identical to digital multi-function print and copier machines dealt with in the case of M/s. Shivam International case cannot be ascertained. The foundation for the claim that the consignments imported by them do not require a licence is very weak and, therefore, the question of exceeding of jurisdiction by the authorities below does not arise. At any rate, the assessees have submitted to the jurisdiction of the original authority and that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision relied upon by the learned advocate in the case of Shri Dhanversha Steel Pvt Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal is concerned only about th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere subject to valuation by approved chartered engineers. Therefore the comparison of the declared value to the value ascertained by the chartered engineer clearly gives an indication of profit margins. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be said that the redemption fine has been imposed without any basis or without conducting any enquiry. Regarding the claim on behalf of M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation that they placed an order for 600 pieces which they imported in different lots and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as repeated offence, it is to be noted that the appellant has not produced any evidence that for the said 600 photocopiers for which the order was placed by them in March, 2009, they have committed to make payments at one go. After the violation was noticed, it has not been shown that they were prevented from cancelling the order risking losses of money, if any, paid by them. Therefore, the appellant's claim that they were importing consignments in different lots based on a single order and they were incapable of following the exim policy cannot be appreciated. 10. However, learned advocate has brought to my notice several decisions of the Tribunal....