MUDRA OFFSET Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appeals arise from a common Order -in -Original No. 1/2001 -COMMR/CUS.ADJN, dated 12 -1 -2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The issue being common, the appeals are taken up together for disposal, as per law. The main party, who imported the used offset printing machine and indulged in import and sale of the same by mis -using the Actual User Condition of the Notification, had come in appeal, whose appeal was dismissed for non -compliance. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has dealt with 23 parties who had purchased the said machine from the main importer viz. M/s. Bhuvaneshwari Services. He has upheld the allegation against 10 parties, in respect of whom the jurisdictional DRI could locate the machines used, and has seized the same. Out of the 10 machineries, which were seized from the premises of the purchasers, 5 parties have filed the appeals. The name of the party, description, quantity, date of seizure and value of the machines are noted in the tabulated form below.

(2.) ARGUING for the appellants, the learned Counsels Shri S. Raghu and Shri S.R. Madhavamurthy, submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal Surekha v. CC, Amritsar reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 597 (Tri. -Del.) has set aside the redemption fine on the ground that the purchasers of the machinery were also actual users. It is submitted that the appellants were under bona fide belief that as the goods had suffered duty and were cleared through Customs, there was no violation of any law to unable them to purchase the same for actual use. It is stated by the Counsel that as long as there was bona fide on the part of the appellants in purchasing the goods for their actual use, then it is to be held that there has been no violation of the EXIM Policy and in such circumstances, the goods cannot be confiscated and fine be levied. It is stated that if at all there has to be any redemption fine, it has to be only against the main importer viz. M/s. Bhuvaneshwari Services and not on the appellants.

(3.) THE learned Counsels were given time to make their submissions on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of V. Solomon Jeyapandian - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 810 (Tri. - Chennai) on the same issue, by granting them a days adjournment. The learned Counsel submitted that the Actual User violation in terms of EXIM Policy has been upheld by the Tribunal and imposition of fine and penalty on the importer had been confirmed. It is stated by them that it was not the case of actual user purchasers but only pertain to cases filed against the actual importers who had violated the EXIM Policy.