TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is allowed partially. - C/651/2007 - C/519/2011(PB) - Dated:- 14-12-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 1627 dated 26-12-2006 at ICD, Gurgoan for import of 51 Numbers of old and used parts of photocopiers like copier assemblies, functional gears, feeding rod, fixing rollers, clutches, ADF, sorters and trolley, etc. of models Canon NP 1318, Canon GP 215 and Canon GP 210 (total 49 Nos.) and Canon X-820 (2 Nos.). They had declared import price of Rs. 150 per set for the 49 pieces and US$ 200 per set for the pieces. 2. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 and hence liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and he also held that the goods should be valued as per the value assessed by the Chartered Engineer. He assessed the value of goods at Rs. 5,53,140/-, confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 6. Aggrieved by the adjudication order the importer filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeal) challenging the classification adopted by Revenue as well as the value adopted. The Commissioner (Appeal) held that the goods will be classifiable under Tariff Item 9009 99 00. He also held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required for assembling the photocopiers. It is only that the department has not been able to co-relate the different imports made at different ports to demonstrate that complete photocopier was imported. He submits that if his profit margin was very low he would not have imported so many consignments of such items after repeated intervention by the department. He pleads that there is no case for showing any leniency to the importer who was a habitual offender. 9. We have considered arguments on both sides. 10. We have considered the argument of the Appellants that once the classification under Tariff Item 9009 99 00 as parts of capital goods, there was no prohibition on its import because the licensing policy against the tariff item in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
