Dipti Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942788
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnMay-29-2009
Case NumberAppeal No.C/30 of 2003
Judge HON’BLE MS.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT & HON’BLE MR. P.KARTHIKEYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
AppellantDipti Enterprises
RespondentCommissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Advocates:For the Appearing Parties:M. Kannan, Advocate, V.V. Hariharan, JCDR
Excerpt:
jyoti balasundaram the plea of the appellants is restricted to reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed in terms of section 112 of the customs act, 1962 for rendering imported secondhand machines liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) of the customs act, 1962 for the reason that although payment for the goods was made much earlier, when the goods were actually imported and bill of entry filed for their clearance, there was a restriction in the exim policy regarding import of secondhand machine namely that a licence was required which the importer did not possess. 2. we have heard both sides. machinery valued at rs.5,41,880/- has been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of rs.55,000/- together with direction for payment of applicable duty on enhanced value. having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we note it is only by operation of law that the goods became liable to confiscation, and hence we accept the prayer by reducing penalty to rs.5,500/- (rupees five thousand five hundred only) and it is ordered accordingly. 3. the appeal is thus partly allowed as above.
Judgment:

Jyoti Balasundaram

The plea of the appellants is restricted to reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for rendering imported secondhand machines liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reason that although payment for the goods was made much earlier, when the goods were actually imported and Bill of Entry filed for their clearance, there was a restriction in the EXIM Policy regarding import of secondhand machine namely that a licence was required which the importer did not possess.

2. We have heard both sides. Machinery valued at Rs.5,41,880/- has been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.55,000/- together with direction for payment of applicable duty on enhanced value. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we note it is only by operation of law that the goods became liable to confiscation, and hence we accept the prayer by reducing penalty to Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five thousand five hundred only) and it is ordered accordingly.

3. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.