2008 (8) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dly imported old and used Monitors and CPUs etc. The appellants declared the assessable value of the goods at Rs. 6,59,442/- and Rs. 3,75,206/- respectively in both the Bills of Entry but the Customs Authorities got the goods evaluated from the local Chartered Engineer. The value of the said goods was opined to be Rs. 18,30,488/- and Rs. 9,63,024/- attracting duty of Rs. 3,76,271/- and Rs. 1,97,695/-. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, ordered the confiscation of goods but gave the appellants an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 6,60,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). A penalty of Rs. 2,55,000/- and Rs. 1,80,000/- was also imposed u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce were liable to be confiscated. There was violation of the Import Policy by the appellant and by virtue of violation of such Import Policy, the goods became liable for confiscation. For such confiscation, mens rea was not required or contemplated as violation of the Import Policy gives rise to confiscation of such imported goods. Once the goods are ordered to be confiscated, the quantum of penalty is within the discretion of the authorities. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in enhancing the penalty is fair and reasonable. The imposition of penalty does not give rise to any question of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon M/s. Rattan Exports Limited, Delhi v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1987 (31) E.L.T. 66 (S.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out any doubt, restricted goods and, thus, could not have been imported without licence. Therefore, said judgment which is based upon interpretation of nature of goods falling into Open General Licence category or restricted category is not helpful. 9. The reliance of the petitioner on M/s. Nirav International's case (supra) is also misconceived as in that case the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. The issue raised before the Court was in respect of valuation of goods by the two Collectors i.e., Collector of Customs, Madras and Collector of Customs, Bombay. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to examine the Bombay Collector's order. The said judgment is not relevant to the issues raised. 10. In Super Electronics's case (supra), th....