9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (Technical) 1. This is a department's appeal against Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.74/CUS/CHD/2006 dated, 18th July, 2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Respondent imported old and used Photocopiers and declared the value of ₹ 11,56,080 which was enhanced by the Original Authority based on Chartered Engineer's certificate to ₹ 16,33,353. The goods were confiscate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and observe that allegation leveled by the Adjudicating Authority is that the Appellants have imported the old and used photocopiers in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 read with Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. I agree with the Adjudicating Authority that there had been contrave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also no evidence on record as to how the Chartered Engineer deduced the price and what was the basis for the same. The Chartered Engineer has only given a general certificate stating the age of the photocopiers as more than eight years old. I find that copiers of none years and twenty years of age cannot have the same value. As such Chartered Engineer's certificate cannot be relied upon. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai reported as 2005 (186) ELT 490 (Tri-Delhi) and my earlier Order-in-Appeals mentioned above, I find that the imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000 and personal penalty of ₹ 1,20,000 is quite harsh and highly excessive. Accordingly, the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) and personal penalty is reduced to ₹ 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
