REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Miraj Marketing Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AMEET INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION V. CC (IMPORTS),MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER NAGPAL V. CC MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
AJAY DAHYABHAI SRIDHAR V. CC,DELHI [REFERRED TO]
VIRAJ IMPO & EXPO LTD. V. CCE THANE -II [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL K. SAPRU V. CC [REFERRED TO]
CC V. KAPIL PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL AGARWAL V. CC MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
METAL KING V. CC [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD OMER VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
KANUNGO AND COMPANYMPANY VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS VS. D BHOORMALL [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH BHATIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SAILASH AMULAKH JOGANI OF GUJARAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Commissioner of Customs VS. Sri Vikram Jain S/o Sri Bheemraj Jain, Prop. Texworth International and others [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT [REFERRED TO]
METRO MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
SHRI MUJEEB RAHMAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the six appeals are arising out of common adjudication order. Therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on gathering specific intelligence that appellant M/s. Vijay Television Ltd., Chennai (Vijay TV) are in possession of broadcasting/telecasting equipments of foreign origin and the equipments have been imported into India illicitly without payment of appropriate Customs duty, the DRI Chennai visited the appellant premises on 29.12.1998 and verified broadcasting/telecasting equipments. The appellants were in possession and using 53 such equipments. These items were purchased from the local market and some of the items were also obtained by them on lease/hire/loan basis. The said equipments were detained under valid mazahar along with the Annexure showing the list of items. On verification of the records and documents and upon satisfaction on licit nature of the import, 37 items were released subsequently. For the remaining 16 items, further investigations were carried out by DRI and another 9 items were also released to the appellant subsequently, on production of valid proof of documents of the licit import.

(3.) OUT of 18 persons, only the following 6 appellants are before the Tribunal against the impugned order against whom redemption fine and personal penalty are imposed as tabulated under:-

Click here to view full judgment.

MIRAJ MARKETING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address