2004 (5) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....    The Show Cause Notice issued found the declared value of the engines and 12 nos. of old used carseats to be on the lower side and the goods required an import licence, which was nor produced. Therefore, they were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) and penalties under Section 112 (a) were imposed. The values were enhanced for the old engines. (c)        The appellants contested the notice on the grounds - (i)       the imports were reconditioning repair and replacement and the appellants were registered with the Director of Industries. (ii)     Goods were purchased on 'as is where is condition' and the packing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;     the adjudicator has imposed a fine of 100% on enhanced value and penalty of about 10%. (ii)     The adjudicator has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of 1996 (81) E.L.T. 227 wherein the Tribunal had held that it was obligatory to grant fine when goods are not totally prohibited and found that engines were restricted item and that import licence had been issued and that calls for offer of redemption fines cannot be found fault with. (iii)    The Commissioner's finding arrived in terms as "......I completely disagree with the importer that the MOP is only 20%. The importer has not submitted any evidence in support of his contention. On the other hand, the Depa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Ltd., 2002 (141) E.L.T. 411, the imports were of 24-12-1996 where contemporaneous fines were in range of 100%. 1995 (80) E.L.T. 360 Shehla Enterprises were in respect of 28-9-1993. 1998 (103) E.L.T. 184 Shree Ram Enterprises was an import prior to 1997 as the appeal was filed only in 1997. 2004 (163) E.L.T. 209 Archana International, import was prior to 1997, this will not cause the upholding of redemption fines, at same levels in 1999, when the subject imports were made. Market would fluctuate and from the copies submitted by the ld. Advocate, CC (Appeals), Mumbai in case of Rajalakshmi & Co. against Order-in-Original No. 18/99, the Learned Commissioner, after considering, fixed a redemption fine of 40% and penalty of 5%. The market dema....