AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 725220 dated 27.11.2009 for import of 53 used digital copier cum printers from Italy. The value of the goods declared by the appellant was Rs. 1,96,450/-. As per the Foreign Trade Policy prevalent during the relevant period second hand copiers could not be imported without a license from the DGFT. The appellant had therefore imported in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and hence the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 for violation of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy read with Section 3 and 11 of Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992. The department also doubted the value declared in the Bill of Entry and had asked the appellant to produce a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The appellant produced a certificate i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Act upon the appellant. 2. After following due process, the lower authority has rejected the value of the goods and re-assessed the duty on a value of Rs. 4,99,053/- and confirmed a demand of Rs. 64,012/- and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant towards this demand. He also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) and gave them an option of redeeming the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 70,000/- only. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order of the lower authority the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who, vide the impugned order, upheld the order of the lower auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the imposition of redemption fine is concerned he would submit that Section 111 provides for confiscation of the goods and Section 125 provides for giving an option of redemption of the confiscated goods on imposition of a fine not exceeding the market value of the goods. It does not restrict it to 10% of the value of the goods. Although, it has generally been the practice that a fine of only about a 10% of the value has been imposed, this has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and the appellant has been repeatedly importing second-hand copiers in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. Further, he has also mis-declared the value of the goods and therefore the fine imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sertion that the machines were not working. Under these circumstances, excluding the depreciation, the replacement value of each Xerox machine assessed by the M/s Subha Syndicate comes to around Rs. 2,000/- per machine which is quite clearly absurdly low. It is not clear as to how he arrived at this figure from the report. On the other hand, the report of the Chartered Engineer hired by the department reads as follows: Valuation Statement and Calculation The average estimated market value on "C&F" basis arrived taking into consideration present market value of new machines and applicable depreciation. S. No Make Model Nos. Qty Present Est. Market price of similar machine per unit in RS.(C&F) Estimated Price per Unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rket value of similar goods and taking into account the value of the cartridges after excluding the damaged cartridges. Therefore, we find that the department was correct in reckoning this value for calculating the customs duty payable. On the submission of the appellant that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Chartered Engineer, we find that this report was not collected behind the back of the appellant but the assessment itself was done in the presence of the appellant. We, therefore, find no force in this argument. Therefore, on the questions of value and assessment of duty, we find in favour of the department. As far as redemption fine and penalty are concerned, we find that there is no hard and fast rule regarding ....