COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) AMRITSAR Vs. PULSO COPIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of three appeals being CUSAP Nos. 3,5 and 6 of 2009 as the issue raised in all these appeals is common. For the purposes of this order, facts are being taken from CUSAP No. 3 of 2009.

(2.) THE dealer -respondent imported old and used incomplete unserviceable photocopying machine incorporating Optical systems - Low duty and their parts GP Toner, Paper Deck Set, Drum units. The Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority recorded a categorical finding that although some parts were missing still the imported goods had the essential character of a photocopier machine and the same were reflected in para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2004 -09) (for brevity 'the Policy'). It was found that the dealer -respondent had imported said goods in violation of the provisions of para 2.17 of Chapter 2 Volume I of the policy as the aforesaid goods require license/ specific permission from the licensing authority. Accordingly under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation and also afforded an option exercising power under Section 125 of the Act to the dealer - respondent to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2,55,000/ - and a personal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was also imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner recorded the finding that the dealer - respondent had imported the goods for the first time and did not mis -declare the description of the goods. Further a finding was recorded that there was no evidence highlighting the presence of intention to withhold the payment of duty. Accordingly redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1,75,000/ - and the personal penalty was also slashed to Rs. 15,000/ - The exercise of discretion by the Commissioner (A) was challenged before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal upheld the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner (A) and opined that the discretion exercised by the Commissioner (A) could not be regarded to be perverse.

(3.) A copy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals.