TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand machinery without any specific licence. - Tribunal, having upheld the contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, had merely referred to the decision in the case of Soni Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) [2007 (2) TMI 125 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 3.00 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/- and set aside the entire penalty. There is no reason why the Tribunal had reduced the fine and set aside the entire penalty. - Tribunal has not passed a speaking order justifying the reduction of fine and setting aside the penalty. Hence, we have no other option except to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue afresh - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered Engineer, came to the conclusion that the goods were more than 10 years old and it should be imported only under specific licence as required under Exim Policy 2002-2007. Since the goods were imported without any licence, the same were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D R) Act, 1992 and penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Since the importer insisted for early adjudication by waiving the show-cause notice and personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority, vide order-in-original, confiscated the goods with an option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of ₹ 3.00 lakhs and imposed penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs. Aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of Section 111(d), the issue stands settled as the relevant date for determination of violation of law is the date of shipment of the goods as held by the Tribunal in Soni Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [2007 (217) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.-Mumbai) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. A.182 (Bom.) [the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order was rejected by the High Court]. I, therefore, uphold the contravention of Section 111(d). In the case of Sony Ispat (supra), the Tribunal has reduced redemption fine from ₹ 8 lakhs to ₹ 1 lakh and set aside the penalty and following the ratio of the above decision, I reduce the rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping,concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on 09.09.2004. The importer taking advantage of the new Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, submitted that at the time of filing bill of entry, new policy had come into force permitting importation of second-hand machinery, the importer is entitled to import the second-hand machinery without any specific licence. 9. The Tribunal, having upheld the contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, had merely referred to the decision in the case of Soni Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) and reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 3.00 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/- and set aside the entire penalty. There is no reason why the Tribunal had reduced the fine and set aside the entire penalty. 10. This Court in the case of Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
