BIG APPLE COMPUTERS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSESSEE is before us in this appeal challenging the order dtd 20-6-2005 passed by the cestat, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under; appellant imported 2160 pieces of used computer monitors from WRC International, USA at a price of US $ 4 per piece through Inland Container Depot, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad-18 and filed bill of entry declaring a total value of import as Rs. 5,04,569/- at Rs. 233. 60 per monitor supported by invoice No. 100901-1 dtd 8-11-2001 of the aforesaid suppliers of goods. The appellant imported the said monitors under the bonafide belief that the second hand computer monitors falls under the definition of capital goods and further are permitted for import freely if they are less than 10 years old, as per the import policy and therefore there was no need for an import licence. However the customs authorities took the view that as per EXIM policy 1997-2002, the second hand goods imported are consumer goods and are restricted items requiring licence for imports. The goods were examined on first appraisement basis and the value of the goods was apprised at Rs. 600/- per monitor and the goods were not released. Since the appellant had to clear the consignment immediately for fulfilling the contractual obligation undertaken and to avoid additional expenses, it requested for adjudication of the matter without issue of show cause notice and to decide the matter by granting personal hearing. Personal hearing was granted on 5-2-2002. The assessee submitted that in the event the goods were to be treated as consumer goods by the department being restricted items requiring a licence under the exim policy, a lenient view was prayed to be taken for imposing any fine or penalty in the matter. On 19-3-2002, the Commissioner passed an order imposing redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- without stating anything on the value of imported goods which was apprised at Rs. 600 per monitor. Since the goods were urgently required, the assessee cleared the goods by paying in cash under protest redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1, 50,000/ -. The appellant was asked to pay duty on the enhanced value of monitors at Rs. 600/- per piece. The assessee paid the countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 2,38,464/- out of total amount of duty of Rs. 5,02,019/- in cash. The assessee was allowed to pay the remaining amount by availing the duty entitlement pass book and by availing exemption of Special additional duty amounting to Rs. 69, 155/ -. Aggrieved by the said order assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal has now chosen to reject the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before us.

(3.) NOTICE was issued and respondents entered appearance.