SHAFIQ RAHMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in both these cases is one and the same and therefore, we are passing a common order.

(2.) WE heard both sides.

(3.) THE appellants imported used Yamaha Motor Cycle in CKD conditions. The Bills of Entry were filed for clearance of the goods. The invoice described the goods as used auto spare parts of Yamaha. The value declared was 850 $ in one case and 900 $ in second case. The Original Authority held that the goods imported are not spares but complete motor cycle in CKD conditions. Consequently, they cannot be imported without licence from the licencing authorities. Thus ITC violation was, established. Hence, proceedings were, initiated against the appellants. The Original Authority held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He did not impose any redemption fine for the clearance for home consumption. However, he ordered that the goods have to be re -exported on payment of a fine of Rs. 19,000/ - in the first appeal and Rs. 20,000/ - in the second appeal. Further, he imposed penalties. The appellants were aggrieved over the orders of the Original Authority. Therefore, they approached the Commissioner (A).