MAA TARA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are directed against the order -in -appeals and the details are : -

(2.) HEARD both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in all these appeals is that the importers/appellants herein have imported second -hand used photocopiers. Valuation was disputed by the Revenue and an independent Chartered Engineer was summoned to value the goods based upon the relevant parameters such as year of make, physical condition of the equipments etc. The Chartered Engineer submitted the valuation. All the appellants herein accepted the said valuation and discharged the duty liability as has been arrived by the adjudicating authority. Since the goods were misdeclared, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that they are liable for confiscation under provision of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rules 3(2) and 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and confiscated the same. However, he gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine as indicated herein above and also imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by such an order, all the appellants moved to ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering submissions made by the appellants before him, reduced the amount of fine to 35% of the value of the imported photocopiers as determined by the Chartered Engineer but did not interfere with the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. Hence all these appeals.

(3.) LD . Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the amount of fine, which has been imposed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) equal to 35% of the value of the goods, which is against the law settled by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Navpad Enterprises [Final Order No. 1231 to 1233/07 dated 31 -10 -2007 and in the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CC (Import) v. Shankar Trading Co. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 206 (Bom.)] and also in the case of M/s. Pulso Copiers [2009 -TIOL -253 - H.C. -P&H -Cus.]. He would submit that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Navpad Enterprises [2009 (235) E.L.T. 376 (Tri. Bang.)] was taken in the appeal by the Revenue to the Honble High Court of Kerala and the Honble High Court dismissed the appeal on 5 -6 -2009 [2009 (240) E.L.T. 336 (Ker.)]. It is his submission that final order is yet to be issued.