TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, they cannot be confiscated for want of a specific import licence and accordingly, the provisions of section 111 (d) will not be applicable in this matter. The interests of justice would be adequately served in this case by reducing the redemption fine imposed under section 111 (m) to ₹ 3,00,000/- and penalty imposed u/s 112 (a) ibid to ₹ 2,00,000/- - appeal allowed in part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. The appellant-importer vide letter dt. 03.09.2007 accepted the proposed enhanced value and requested to adjudicate the case without issue of show cause notice and personal hearing. After due process of adjudication, original authority vide order dated 05.10.2007, rejected the declared valued and determined the value of said goods at ₹ 19,83,434 (CIF) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import), Chennai , wherein it was held that for the goods not restricted, the confiscation was found to be unwarranted and redemption fine and penalty was set aside. 3. On the other hand, Ld.AR Shri B. Balamurugan supports the adjudication order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. Without doubt, the import of photocopiers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees three lakhs only] and penalty imposed under section 112 (a) ibid to Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees two lakhs only]. We also find that an additional redemption fine of ₹ 1 lakhs has been imposed over and above on the grounds of undeclared connectivity and variations in the model . Such additional redemption fine on the same goods does not have any legal basis and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
