2023 (10) TMI 755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Party's appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant imported old and used Printer cum Multi function Device of Xerox/Canon make from USA vide Bill of Lading No.6053707730 dated 25.03.2013 and filed the Bill of Entry dated 06/05/2013, for clearance of the goods. The value declared was USD 28025/- equivalent to Rs.21,10,438.72/-. While assessing the Bill of Entry, the assessing officer rejected the transaction value and enhanced the same to USD 38617.36/- on the basis of report and opinion from Chartered Engineer. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,06,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Photocopier Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2009(233)ELT 425 (Tri- Mum) in support of their contention. 5. Regarding redemption fine and penalty imposed, they stated that the redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000/- is more than 30% of the declared value, which is very harsh. In the case of Navpad Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, Tribunal, Bangalore has held that Redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% is reasonable and the Appellate authorities cannot deviate from the decisions. 6. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is related to enhancement of value and consequent im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quent to the amendment the said goods became importable only against authorization. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 06/05/2013, ie, after 28.02.2013 and hence the goods were restricted goods. Since the Appellant was not having any authorization, the goods were liable for confiscation. Accordingly, we find that the goods were rightly confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on redemption fine. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of confiscation of the goods. 11. Regarding the quantum of redemption fine imposed , we observe that in the case of M/s Navpad Enterprises, reported in 2009(235) ELT 376 (Tri-Ban), affirmed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court , it has been held that fine upto 10% and penalty upto 5% would be reasonable....