2009 (2) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... who confirmed the goods to be old and used photocopier machines and assessed their value at US $ 40,930 (FOB). The Department proceeded against the appellant on two counts:- Firstly that the goods being old and used photocopiers are restricted for import as per para 2.17 of 2004-09 Exim Policy and since the appellant have not produced any import license, the same are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act and the appellant would be liable to pay penalty under Section 112(a) ibid. Secondly, the declared value is not correct and the value has been under declared as on the basis of NIDB data, the contemporaneous imports of the second hand photocopier machines have been noticed at much higher value and that the value of go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... defended the impugned order by reiterating the Commissioners findings. He emphasised that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CC, Cochin v. Atul Commodities Ltd. reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Kerala) and of the Tribunal in cases of Sooraj Graphics v. CCE Coimbatore, reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 404 (Tri.-Mad.) & Bhagwan Electrocopier v. CCE, Gurgaon reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 249 (Tri.-Del.) the photocopier machines are not capital goods but consumer goods and hence the same are restricted for import and therefore, the same have been correctly confiscated by the adjudicating authority and that Tribunal (Larger Bench)'s judgment in case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. relied on by the appellant has been overru....