TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer appellate authority reducing the fines and penalties are set aside and the impugned Orders-in-Original are restored in regard to imposition of fines and penalties. - C/5-11, 64-65 and 151-157/2010 - 154-169/2012 - Dated:- 2-3-2012 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri P. Saravanan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. All these appeals have been filed by the Department against the orders of the lower appellate authority reducing the fines and penalties to the levels of 15% and 5% of the assessed value respectively. While passing the impugned orders, reducing fines and penalties, the lower appellate authority has upheld the confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any case not possible to confiscate the portion of the machine, which has the copying function alone. It may also be noted that primarily such machines when imported are being used in the Indian market for photocopying by shops for a fee, and are rarely if ever used for any other function such as printing or scanning etc. though the machines may have these functions. The finding of the lower authority that the goods can also be treated as an output device (printer) of a computer, and thereby restricted is also on a sound footing, as computers/laptops are also restricted. The order of the lower appellate authority is therefore correct inasmuch as it refers to the licensing aspect also. 3. The learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal argues at len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1788212 536000/30 447000/25 269000/15 90000/5 M/s. Sooraj Graphics 05. C/8/2010 1256331 300000/24 100000/8 190000/15 65000/5 06. C/9/2010 1151878 270000/24 55000/5 175000/15 60000/5 07. C/10/2010 1270552 318000/25 318000/25 190000/15 65000/5 08. C/11/2010 1833169 458000/25 458000/25 275000/15 95000/5 09. C/151/2010 836475 251000/30 209000/25 126000/15 42000/5 M/s. Jaydev Industries 10. C/5/2010 1254298 2500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the margin of profit has not been determined in these cases and hence imposing of redemption fine of 25% on the basis of oral enquiries is not proper. On the other hand, the lower appellate authority has followed the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Trichy v. Kangra Overseas - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 665 which in turn followed the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Sai Copiers - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 486 (Mad.) and hence the reduction in fine and penalty ordered by the lower appellate authority is fair and does not require any interference. He prays for dismissing the appeals filed by the Department. 5. I have heard both sides and taken the oral arguments and writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t arbitrary or unreasonable. I also find that the respondents are repeatedly importing the same goods and they are not deterred by lower fines and penalties imposed in the past. Hence, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by the original authorities are required to be upheld and the orders passed by the lower appellate authority are required to be set aside. 7. As regards the argument by the learned counsel that in two cases, the Department has not come in appeal against reduction of fines and penalties, these cases are required to be looked into by the concerned Chief Commissioner of Customs for taking necessary remedial steps. I do find that in a number of cases the Department has filed appeals against the arbitrary reduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal at Chennai in the case of M/s. Unitech Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai in Appeal No. C/288/2009 vide Final Order No. 153/2012 dated 2-3-2012 [2012 (279) E.L.T. 236 (Tribunal)] recorded by me on behalf of the Bench holding that the multifunctional print and copying machines are subject to import restriction applicable to photocopiers for the detailed reasons stated therein, which need not be repeated herein again. The gist of the said order is as follows :- (i) The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivam International (supra) has been rendered per incurium and the same cannot be followed as a precedent. (ii) Its ratio unsettles the settled practice of upholding confiscation of goods similar to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
