C.C. (PORT IMP.) Vs. SHUBHAM CONSTRUCTION
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-19
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 22,2015

C.C. (Port Imp.) Appellant
VERSUS
Shubham Construction Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.Periasami, Member (T) - (1.)REVENUE filed appeal against the Order -in -Appeal dated 15.09.2009.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents have imported Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines vide Bill of Entry No. 279266 dated 05.08.2009. The adjudicating authority in his order dated 15.09.2009, ordered confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the goods on imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 4,18,000/ - and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,49,000/ - under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal by the respondent, the lower appellate authority has reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,10,000/ - and penalty to Rs. 1,30,000/ -. Hence, Revenue filed the present appeal against the reduction of redemption fine and penalty.
The Ld. AR iterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the impugned import is the third one and the respondents were committing it repetitively, since the goods are restricted and confiscation was upheld under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the respondents have not contested the confiscation. He submits that reduction in redemption fine and penalty is not justified. He relies upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of CC, New Delhi v. Asian Copiers and Others 2014 -TIOL -649 -CESTAT -DEL.

(3.)ON the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent submits that the import of Digital Multifunction printing and photocopying machines were not an restricted item during the relevant period and became a restricted item only w.e.f. 28.02.2013, upon specific amendment at para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy. He submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on a batch of appeals, on an identical issue, in the case of CC v. M/s. City Office Equipment & Others, dismissed the Revenue appeal and upheld the order of the Ld. Single judge and held that the amended policy at para 2.17 was only prospective w.e.f. 28.02.2013. He further submits that in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the goods are not restricted item and they are not liable for redemption fine and penalty and requests to remand the matter to the lower authority.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.