2024 (2) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed does not fall under the definition of "Capital Goods" as per para-9.12 of Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant did not have licence to import such goods and therefore the goods were held to be liable for confiscation. The original authority after due process of law passed the order directing for confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. Penalty was also imposed. Against such order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel Ms. G. Varshitha appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel that the goods are used goods which are intended for re-export. Appellant has also re-exported the same. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order was reiterated. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue to be decided is whether the order of confiscation of the imported goods viz. used hand tools, is legal and proper. The issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Asia Power Projects Ltd. (supra) wherein on identical set of facts the Tribunal observed that as per para 9.12 of FTP, any goods which fall under the category of equipments, apparatus etc. are freely importable irrespective of their size and nature. So also, as per the EPCG scheme, there is no difference as to whether tools are machine tools or hand tools. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under : "5.1 True, the definition of "capital goods" as found in para 9.12 of the FTP does not spe....