SHOTAM INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Counsel vehemently opposes the first appellate order on the ground that the goods brought to India were not restricted goods and that is not covered by the EXIM Policy of 2004 -09. The goods were only GPS and Modem but not the GPS and transreceiver. Such goods are not covered by the EXIM Policy. Therefore, the classification adopted by the Revenue is not correct and neither redemption fine nor penalty imposable. Revenue supports the adjudication.

(2.) HEARD both sides and perused record. Revenue is not in appeal against the appellate order which upheld the classification but granted reduction in redemption fine as well as penalty. In adjudication, the imposition of redemption fine was Rs. 3,15,000/ - and penalty was Rs. 75,000/ -. But appellate authority reduced the same to Rs. 2 Lakhs and 50,000/ - respectively. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the classification in Para 13 of the order recorded as under: -

(3.) ALTHOUGH appellant advances a novel argument today that there was no examination of technicality of the goods by any technical institution, such proposition of appellant was not before either of the authority below. Therefore, such averment on technicality is not entertainable at this stage being a fresh ground. The appellate authority appears to have applied his mind to understand whether the goods imported was covered by EXIM policy of 2004 -09. He has noted what that GPS transreceiver means. He was of the view that GPS receiver is different from GPS transreceiver. Accordingly, he held that there was licensing requirement under EXIM policy. When no licence was obtained, the goods were liable to confiscation. Law is clear that when the goods entered into India in contravention of law that becomes smuggled goods under Section 2(39) of Customs Act 1962. Considering the imposition of quantum of redemption fine and penalty to be appropriate as ordered by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), assessee's appeal is dismissed.