C. ESWARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order dated 27 July, 2011 on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT") whereby and whereunder while confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant imported shuttle less sulzer projectile weaving looms from Spain and cleared the same through ICD, Singanallur. The department of Customs on the basis of relevant information searched the premises of the appellant and on verification of records and imported machinery it was noticed that the machines in SI. Nos. 64716, 64717, 64733, 68251 and 68997 were engraved in each looms and the same were tallied with machinery numbers that were mentioned in the Chartered Engineer's Certificate. It was also found that number plates marked as 1994 were affixed in all the machines. Further enquiry conducted revealed that the machineries were manufactured during the years 1978 and 1979 and the looms were imported in violation of Para 2.17 of EXIM Policy 2002 -07.

(2.) THE Customs Department detained the looms under cover of Mahazar dated 9 October, 2003 and issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 25 February, 2004 directing him to show cause as to why the machineries should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. The appellant filed a written response, wherein it was stated that the firm has engaged an agent, to import machineries and as such, they were not aware of the alleged discrepancy.

(3.) THE order passed by the original authority dated 7 June, 2004 was challenged before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner concurred with the views expressed by the original authority and confirmed the order. The appellate order dated 3 September, 2004 was challenged before CESTAT. The CESTAT found that the appellant fairly admitted that the looms were more than twenty -five years old and he himself has fixed the number plates to show the year of manufacture as 1994. The CESTAT was of the view that the original authority was perfectly correct in confiscating the looms. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was of the view that the fine in lieu of confiscation should be reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. Accordingly the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as fine. The appeal preferred against the imposition of penalty was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the common order passed by CESTAT, these two appeals were preferred, one at the instance of the firm and another at the instance of the partner.