TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heading 84716030 of the 1st Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "CA Act"). At the material time the import of the impugned goods was restricted as per Para 2.33 of Foreign Trade Procedure (2002-07) Relevant para is reproduced:- "Import of second hand computer and laptop are restricted for import. The import of refurbished/reconditioned spares will be allowed on production of Chartered Engineer certificate that such spares have a residual life not less than 80% of the life of the original spares." 2. The import under this sub para would be subject to the condition that the goods shall not be used for any commercial purpose, is non transferable and complies with all the terms and conditions of relevant Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise Jalandhar, who vide OIA No. 30/CUS/APPL/LDH/2006 dated 28-8-2006 set aside the redemption fine imposed upon the appellant department relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) and reduced penalty from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 6. Aggrieved against the said order, the department preferred appeal before the CESTAT praying for upholding the order dated 28-8-2006, who vide its order dated 25-5-2007 dismissed the appeal of the revenue relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (supra) and Tribunal in the case of Ramkhaz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals are not in confirmity with the provisions of Section 125 of the Act which provides that whenever confiscation of any goods is authorized in case of non-prohibited goods, the Adjudicating Authority shall give an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Hence, once the goods are held as offending in nature, even if the said goods are not physically available for confiscation, the same ought to be ordered as confiscated and redemption fine should have been imposed. Learned counsel for the department has further argued that since there was mis-declaration of value by the respondent-firm, therefore, the respondent firm is liable to pay redemption fee and penalty. Since the goods were imported in contravention of Foreign Trade Policy, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were the owners of the goods at the time of issuing of the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Customs also found that the goods were not available and no undertaking had been obtained by the department at the time of release of goods and therefore, confiscation of the goods, cannot be maintained and no fine in lieu of confiscation can be imposed especially where the goods were neither seized nor cleared on undertaking. While passing the said order, the Commissioner of Customs has relied upon the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (supra), Ram Khazana Electronic v. CC (AIR Cargo) Jaipur reported as 2003 (156) E.L.T. 122 (Indel) and Chinku Exports v. CC, Cal....