9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to clear the goods under Bill of Entry dated 3-10-2001 in terms of para 5.4 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. Under para 5.4 ibid, second hand capital goods which were not more than 10 years old could be freely imported. The Customs authorities challenged the appellant's claim that the imported capital goods were less than 10 years old. The appellants could not produce any special import licen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 years old. The Commissioner held that, in the absence of import licence, the importation was prohibited and, therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation and, further, the importer was liable to penalty. The Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Act with option to the party to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connection, the CA relies on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Extrusion v. CC, Calcutta, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 52 (Cal.) and the Supreme Court's decision in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. CC, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). He also submits that, in the absence of any documentary evidence from the department's side, the foreign expert's certificate ought to have been accepted by the Commissioner. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accepted by the Customs authorities. Confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalty under Section 112 were accordingly held to be unsustainable. I find that, in the cited case, the benefit of doubt was given to the importer. In the instant case, apparently, the Commissioner has not properly examined the foreign expert's certificate produced by the importer. Moreover, the material relied on by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
