TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly passed the order of confiscation and thereafter given an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 13,00,000/- u/s 125 of the Customs Act 1962 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all the evidence on record and has come to a right conclusion and in my view, the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the Commissioner is not excessive and does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/22271/2014-SM, C/22272/2014-SM, C/27629/2013-SM, C/28405/2013-SM, C/28406/2013-SM and C/28407/2013-SM - 21505-21510/2016 - Dated:- 29-12-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri P.A. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,50,000/- 4,00,000/- 4 C/28405/2013 COC-CUSTM-000-COM-019-12-13 dated 29.08.2013 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 5 C/28406/2013 COC-CUSTM-000-COM-020-12-13 dated 13.08.2013 12,00,000/- 6,00,000/- 6 C/28407/2013 COC-CUSTM-000-COM-022-12-13 dated 18.09.2013 15,00,000/- 8,00,000/- For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal No.C/22271/2014 is taken. The appellant is a Merchant Importer and had entered into a contract for supply of used Digital Multifunction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. During the hearing before the Commissioner, appellant submitted that the import of used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines started before the date of amendment of Foreign Trade Policy and the amendment is not applicable in the present imports. But the learned Commissioner did not consider the submissions and vide the impugned order allowed the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) and on payment of duty at the rate applicable. Penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant paid the Customs Duty, fine and penalty and thereafter challenged the same before this Tribunal. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of used MFP required licence from the DGFT. 4. On the other hand the learned AR strongly defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law because of the imports involved in the present appeals have been effected after the amendment in the Foreign Trade Policy which was effected by Notification No. 35 and Public Notice No. 50 on 28.02.2013. He further submitted that after the amendment, the disputed items become restricted and could not have been imported without prior licence from the DGFT which in the present case the appellant did not have. He further submitted that the law is well settled to the effect that the date of shipment is the date of receipt of goods on Board as mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
