2017 (9) TMI 1503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for reference. 2.  Brief facts are that the appellants had imported consignment of old and used mainframe assemblies and parts/components of photocopiers from M/s. Second Source Intl. Inc. USA declaring the value of USD 8010. It needs to be mentioned that all the imports were prior to 19.10.2005 on which date the restriction for import of second-hand photocopiers came to be introduced as per para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy. On preliminary investigation conducted by the officers of SIIB, it was found that the goods were used photocopiers of Canon brand of different models in SKD  conditions and that there was gross mis-declaration of the value of the goods. Accordingly, the goods were valued by a Chartered Engineer on 13.2.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ineer's certificate and confiscated the goods imposing redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- Similar show causes notices were issued in Appeal No. C/ 272/2007 and C/281/2007. After adjudication the value in appeal No. C/272/2007 is enhanced to USD 45,595/and redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-  with personal penalty of 1,25,000/- is imposed. In Appeal No. C/281/2007, the value is enhanced to USD 46,379 and the redemption fine imposed is Rs. 2,00,000/-  with penalty of Rs. 90,000/-. Hence these appeals. 3.  The learned counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appearing for the appellants submitted that the department had obtained the information / valuation of a Chartered Engineer who is a person qualified as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The contention of the appellant that the goods had already been released to them and the Chartered Engineer had not inspected the goods is false. He pointed out to the difference in the date of inspection and date of issuance of report in the report dated 18.8.2004 and submitted that the date has been wrongly mentioned as 30.4.2004 and it ought to have been 30.4.2003. Mentioning of the year as 2004 was only an inadvertent error. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly enhanced the value basing upon the second Chartered Engineer regarding the description of the goods as well as the value of each item. 5.  We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 6.  At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant has approac....