2017 (10) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Act, 1962. 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that Bill of Entry No.8070881 dt. 28/09/2012 was filed on behalf of the appellant by their Customs House Agent M/s. Natchart Private Ltd. for the clearance of amusement park equipments like crazy cars, mini disco, roller coaster etc. under EPCG scheme. The goods were supplied by M/s. Abdul Mohsen Al Hokair Group Riyadh Plastic Factory, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The assessable value as per the above, worked to Rs. 5,87,31,897.84. The Bill of Entry was assessed under second appraisement on 28/09/2012 and duty amounting to Rs. 18,14,816/- was paid as per Notification No.103/2009-Cus under EPCG scheme on 28/09/2012. 2.2. On examination, the goods appeared to be used one. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1962 and also liable to penalty under Section 112(a). On the request of importer, show-cause notice was waived and the matter was decided on merit. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that redemption fine cannot be fixed without considered the margin of profit and quantum of fine and penalty can be fixed only after considering margin of profit and accrued demurrage charges. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has not committed any lapse and he has placed orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he port, it was found that they have been imported in violation of EPCG licence granted to the appellant. He further submitted that even though the goods have been reexported but the appellant is still liable for redemption fine and the penalty because they have misdeclared the goods in their Bill of Entry. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. M.V. Marketing & Supplies [2004(178) ELT 1034 (Tri. Chennai)] ii. A.K. Jewellers Vs. CC, Mumbai [2003(155) ELT 585 (Tri. LB)] iii. CC, Bombay Vs. Elephanta Oil & Industries Ltd. [2003(152) ELT 257 (SC)] 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material and the decisions relied upon by both the parties....