TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami All the 10 appeals are taken up together for disposal as the issue is arising out of common adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. The issue relates to confiscation of imported goods for contravention of FTP Policy and Customs Act. The present appeals filed only against imposition of personal penalties on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 2. The brief facts of the case relates to import of second hand printing machinery under fictitious names as actual user and the same were sold in violation of EXIM Policy in the open market. The Commissioner of Customs in his first OIO No.55/2000 dt. 25.8.2000 adjudicated the case, confiscated 74 numbers of machi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebaraj to deposit Rs. 25,000/- and remaining appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 15,000/- each and the same was complied. The appeals were posted for hearing on several occasions viz. 18.10.2013, 6.12.2013, 17.1.2014, 1.8.2014, 5.5.2015, 1.7.2015 and none appeared. Again, the matter is arising before us today. 3. Today also none appeared for the appellant nor any vakalat filed. Considering the appeals relate to the year 2005 and the appellants failed to respond to the several hearings fixed, we proceed to decide all the appeals ex-parte on merits based on the documents available on record. 4. Heard Ld. A.R for Revenue who reiterated the findings of the adjudication order. She submits that penalty has been rightly imposed on the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etail and the modus operandi of floating fictitious firms and the imported second hand machinery violating actual user condition which was investigated by D.R.I. We hold that appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 (a). The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries Vs UOI - 2004 (166) ELT 318 (Bom.) in an identical issue of import of second hand machinery held that penalty is imposable and dismissed the writ petition filed by the importers. The said judgement of Hon'ble High Court was upheld by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT A264 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision (supra) is reproduced as under :- "4. It is thus clear that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners. The importers who are importing goods without licence and then seek to validate the import by obtaining subsequent licence or licences cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. The petitioners are one of them." The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The appellants contravened the provisions of Customs Act and EXIM Policy by fraud, collusion, abetting thereby the imported goods became liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act which is clearly established in the present case. Accordingly, the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) for contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962. However, taking into overall facts and circumstances case, and al....