TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed are excessive & are respectively reduced to 10% & 5% of the value assessed by the department. - Decided partly in favour of appellant. - Appeal No. C/233/2007 - Order No.FO/A/75377/2016 - Dated:- 9-5-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) AND SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Avijit Chakraborty, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S. Nath, AC (AR) ORDER PER SHRI H.K.THAKUR This appeal has been filed by appellant against OIO No. KOL/CUS/PORT/77/07 dt 06/07/2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata as Adjudicating authority. Under this OIO dt 06/07/2007 Adjudicating authority has confiscated old used photocopiers imported by the appellant and has given an option fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without prejudice if their argument on enhancement of value confiscation of imported goods is not accepted then also the quantum of redemption fine penalty is very high and the range of redemption fine penalty in such imports should be 10% 5% respectively of the value assessed by the departments. He relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument where in similar imports redemption fine penalty have been restricted to 10% 5% respectively :- (i) CC Chennai Vs Rasi Offset Printers [2014 (313) ELT 234 (Tri. Chennai.)]. (ii) Bhavani Enterprises Vs CC Vishakapatname [2010 (262) ELT 536 (Tri-Bang.)]. (iii) BE Office Automation Products Ltd Vs CCE Gurgaon [2014 (300) ELT 486 (P H)]. (iv) BE Office Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to 10% 5% respectively as has been held by courts in the other imports of the same appellant. 5. So for as arguments at Para- 4 (a) (b) above are concerned it has been correctly pointed out by the Learned AR that multifunctional machines have copying facility are classifiable under CTH 84433100. Appellant has claimed and classified their imported goods under CTH 84433930 in the bills of entry which is meant for ordinary photocopying machines. Secondly, the issue of valuation licensing restriction was not agitated by the appellant before the Adjudicating authority at all. Observations made by the Adjudicating authority in Para 10 to 13 of the OIO dt 6/7/2007 clearly indicate acceptance of enhanced assessable value DGFT restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of redemption fine in no way dwarfs the right of the appellant to challenge not only confiscation but also imposition of redemption fine and final penalty. Even otherwise, to save cost of detention and demurrage as also to avoid further deterioration in value and quality of goods, making of payment of redemption fine by the importer for release of goods at the earliest, cannot be said to be bad or improper. It also remains a fact that for release of the goods, the appellant had to pay detention and demurrage charges which also entailed cost of legal expenses etc. The very purpose of imposition of redemption fine is to wipe out the element of profit on import of restricted goods. In the cases in hand, element of wiping of profit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
