TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue at Rs. 10,64,400/-. The Commissioner further found that the goods imported by the assessee were covered by the definition of 'second hand goods' and their import was governed by the provisions of Paragraph 2.17 of the EXIM Policy, 2002-07. He therefore opined that their import required a specific licence. As the assessee had no such licence, he held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1962'), and held the assessee liable for payment of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act of 1962. The assessee was however allowed to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Hyderabad, in Appeal No. 37/2005 (H-II) Customs. By order dated 7-6-2005, the Appellate Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal in part. The Appellate Commissioner confirmed the enhanced valuation of the imported goods but held that such goods were freely importable in view of the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for brevity, 'the CEST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction in the interest of justice. 6. Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel, would counter this argument asserting that the proper remedy for the assessee is to carry the matter to the Supreme Court and that this review is nothing but a further appeal in disguise. He would place reliance on Lily Thomas v. Union of India - (2000) 6 SCC 224, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view and such power can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It was further pointed out that the mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review and a review cannot be an appeal in disguise. He also relied on Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque - AIR 1955 SC 233, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the error apparent should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record and no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required examination or argument to establish it. 7. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of this Court in M/s. Bhavana Rice Trading Company v. The Commercial Tax Officer - W.P.M.P. No. 28653 of 2010 in W.P. No. 26420 of 2009, dated 22-3-2011, wherein a Division Bench of this Court refused to entertain a review petition, relying upon Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi - AIR 1980 SC 674 which held to the effect that a party to a judgment cannot seek review thereof merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Learned Standing Counsel would assert that this is the endeavour of the assessee in the case on hand and, therefore, the review petition should be rejected outright. 10. The Learned Standing Counsel would also point out that in the grounds of appeal, the question of free importability of the goods and lack of jurisdiction to levy redemption fine and penalty was not even raised. However, we find that though the assessee did not say so in so many words, the legality of such imposition of redemption fine and penalty was raised. Reference in this regard may be made to questions of law 2 and 3. '2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal's order imposing redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordingly granted and the matter is taken up for rehearing. 14. At this stage, it may be noted that a Larger Bench of the CESTAT in Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. v. CC, Cochin & Hyderabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-LB) held that used photocopier machines were freely importable and did not require a licence, in terms of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. 15. By the Order-in-Original dated 10-5-2005, the Commissioner opined to the contrary that such goods were restricted for import and were therefore liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act of 1962. Section 111(d) reads as under : 'Any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.' 16. Imposition of penalty upon the assessee was under Section 112(a) of the Act of 1962, which empowers imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods, and states to the effect that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to conf....