TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant on the used imported goods, imported vide Bill of Entry number 6636231 dated 3-9-2014 and after rejecting the declared assessable value of the goods imported, has redetermined the value and directed the goods to be cleared on payment of applicable date of duty under merit. The adjudicating authority has also ordered confiscation of the said imported goods under section 111 (d) and section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962, while allowing the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.50 lakhs only in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act 1962. The adjudicating authority had further imposed a penalty of Rs.62,49,728/- under section 114 A of the Customs Act 1962 for having rendered the goods li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue as fixed by the chartered engineer. However, they pleaded that the enhancement in the value should not lead to any penal action against them and requested for a lenient view. The adjudicating authority, however, upon adjudication, however held that the appellant had wilfully suppressed the facts that the goods are used machinery and mis-declared the goods imported as new machineries and thus after rejecting the declared value and redetermining the same and directing the goods to be cleared on payment of merit rate of duty also ordered confiscation of the goods while imposing redemption fine and penalty vide the impugned order in original as above mentioned. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the appellant having preferred this appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re was no reason for the appellant to have deliberately suppressed the nature of the goods. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel that the fine imposed is disproportionate and the imposition of penalty was also not warranted in these circumstances. The quantum of redemption fine, the demurrage and detention charges incurred were not taken into consideration while arriving at the quantum of redemption fine. Reliance was placed on the decision in Jain Exports Private Limited, Vs Union of India - 1990 (47) ELT 213 (SC) and CC Amritsar Vs. Santan Sales & Services, 2010 (252) ELT (382) Tribunal (New Delhi). Ld. Counsel also submitted that the claim for assessment under the EPCG Scheme was rejected and the goods were assessed to duty before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued to the appellant, at Sl.No.2 in the description of the capital goods being imported, clearly indicated the year of manufacturing as 1992. Whether it has been so indicated by the licensing authority by oversight or otherwise, the fact remains that the list attached reflects the aforesaid detail. It is also a fact that the FTP policy for the relevant period, save for the capital goods and other second hand goods, stipulated under the restricted category allowed to be imported only as per provisions of FTP, ITC (HS), Handbook of Procedures volume 1, Public Notice or an Authorisation issued for import of the specified second hand item, nevertheless provided in the table under para 2.17 that all other second hand capital goods can be impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges. It was also pointed out that the appellant had incurred huge storage and liner charges and a copy of their detention advice was also produced. They have stated that it is for these reasons that they were prepared to pay the duty on the value fixed by the chartered engineer. We are therefore of the view that the mere fact that the appellant in such circumstances were prepared to pay the duty in itself does not mean that they have not declared the true value of the imported goods thereby inviting penal consequences. Equally, we also notice that the impugned order in original is bereft of any reasons as to the basis for having arrived at the conclusion that the value declared by the appellant in the said invoices are incorrect and are to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ready found that the appellant's explanation of bonafide belief in importing these goods under the EPCG Scheme is not implausible and absent any finding of manipulation of fraud in the invoices under which the goods were imported, we are unable to concur with the adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant had wilfully suppressed or mis-declared the goods. That apart, we find that the appellant is right in its submission that the claim for assessment under EPCG Scheme having been rejected and goods assessed to duty before their clearance and when duty as assessed was paid, absent a demand of duty that has been determined under subsection (8) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty under Section 114A is untenabl....