NAVPAD ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE details of the appeals are given below.

(2.) SHRI N. Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, Authorised Representative (JDR) for the Revenue.

(3.) WE heard both sides. In all these cases, the appellant imported second hand photocopier and declared certain value and wanted to clear them on payment of duty. The Original Authority had found that they had violated the EXIM provisions in view of the DGFT Circular because the second hand photocopiers are not allowed to be imported without procuring any licence. Since there was policy violation, proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The declared value was also not accepted. Based on the Chartered Engineers certificate, the Adjudicating Authority re -fixed the value. Since there was violation of the policy provision and also mis -declaration of value, the Adjudicating Authority held that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation. However, he ordered to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties. It was contested by the appellants that the redemption fine imposed was done in an arbitrary passion and there was no market enquiry and the redemption fine fixed is not in accordance with the Section 125 of the Customs Act. The appellant cited a large number of Tribunal rulings wherein in similar cases, the redemption fine was 10% of the value of the goods and the penalty was only 5%. The following cases were relied upon by the learned advocate.