9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld the confiscation of the impugned goods imported by the respondents without valid import licences. Relevant extract from one such common order dealing with four such cases is reproduced below :- "As regards licensing, the plea of the appellants is that although photocopiers are restricted under the EXIM policy, the goods imported by them are multifunction machines, which are classified under different headings of 8443.31 and 8443.39 of the Customs Tariff respectively, hence when the department has accepted classification under 8443.31 as multifunction machines, the goods cannot be treated as photocopiers for the purpose of licensing aspect alone. As per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 as amended, there is a specific re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al argues at length and states that having upheld the confiscation of the impugned goods, the lower appellate authority was not correct in reducing the fines and penalties which were not excessive or arbitrary and were appropriate in respect of repeated imports of the same goods by the same importers without import licence and in violation of the Government's policy. She refers to the detailed order passed by the Tribunal in respect of one of the respondents herein among others justifying appropriate levels of fines and penalties in cases of repeated offenders vide Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Sagar Enterprises - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 101. The following Table gives details of redemption fine (RF) and penalties in each case in rupees as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any 16. C/155/2010 1650348 495000/30 412000/25 248000/15 83000/5 4. Shri P. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents inter alia submits that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2011-TIOL-851-CESTAT- BANG has held that no licence is required for the import of the digital multifunctional devices and hence no redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on import of these machines. He also states that in two cases the Department has not filed appeals against the order of the first appellate authority imposing 15% fine and 5% penalty on similar goods and therefore, filing appeals in these cases is arbitrary and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sai Copiers (supra) has been taken note of Finally, it has been decided, for the detailed reasons stated therein which need not be repeated here again, that in respect of repeated offences fines and penalties imposed to prevent illegal imports and to effectively implement the Import Policy laid down by the Government have to be upheld if such fines and penalties are not unreasonable or arbitrary. It has also been held therein that the lower appellate authority reducing the fines and penalties in each case to 15% + 5% = 20% was unjustified. For the very same reasons, in these cases also reduction in fines and penalties to the level of 15% + 5% = 20% is not justified. As seen from the Table above, the original authority has imposed fines r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling an appeal in the Tribunal, the plea made by the respondents in this regard cannot also be considered. Further, the respondents themselves are admitting existence of oral enquiries by the customs authorities in this regard. In any case, I find that the original authority has imposed fines in the range of 20% to 30% only which appear to be reasonable and not arbitrary. The fact that the respondents have cleared the impugned goods on payment of such fines and penalties goes to show that there was still a margin of profit for them. 9. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivam International (supra), wherein it has been held that the impugned goods do not require a lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) It does not take into account the fact that the printing function is integral to the photocopier without which the photocopy cannot be produced. (vii) It fails to take judicial notice of the fact that the impugned goods are commonly known as photocopiers and their primary use is for photocopying. As such, the confiscation of these machines imported without valid licences as held by the authorities below requires no interference apart from the fact that no appeals have been filed against such confiscation by the respondents. 10. As regards the fines imposed by the original authority in these cases, as noted earlier the same are in the range of 20% to 30% in respect of these cases and the penalties imposed range f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
