2016 (5) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iers" imported by the appellant and has given an option for redeeming the same on payment of Rs. 8 lakh as redemption fine. A penalty of Rs. 3 lakh has also been imposed under Sec 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962. The declared value of Rs. 18, 99,144/- was enhanced at the time of assessment for the imported goods to Rs. 26, 41,645/-. 2. Sh. Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Adjudicating authority has arbitrarily enhanced the assessable value on the basis of a Chartered Engineers report as detail in Para- 4 of the OIO dt 6/7/2007. After making the bench go through Para-5 & 6 of the OIO learned Advocate argued that the basis of enhancing the value is not justified. 2.1 On the issue of confisc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aon [2014 (300) ELT 486 (P &H)]. (iv) BE Office Automation Products (P) Ltd Vs CC (Prev) Amritsar.( Final order No. CIA/177-188/12 -Cus dt 25/06/12 passed by CESTAT, New Delhi. ). 3. Sh. S. Nath AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has claimed the classification of the second hand imported photocopiers under CTH 84433930 whereas multifunctional photocopies are classifiable under CTH 8443 3100 which was not the classification claimed by the appellant. That neither the issue of valuation nor the nature of second hand copiers & licensing restrictions were agitated by the appellant before the Adjudicating authority. So far as quantum of redemption fine & penalty are concerned Learned AR argued that appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arly indicate acceptance of enhanced assessable value & DGFT restriction. In view of the above consent given by the appellant we are not inclined to entertain these fresh grounds at this appellate stage when the same issues were not agitated before the lower Adjudicating authority at all. 6. So for as leniency in imposing quantum of redemption fine & penalty is concerned appellant also sought leniency as per Para-14 of the OIO dt 6/7/2007 during adjudication but adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of nearly 30% of enhanced value & a penalty equivalent to 10% of the enhanced value. It is observed from the appellant's own case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as BE Office Automation Products Ltd Vs CCE Gurgaon (....