Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gillette Diversified Operations ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 11 January, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/23/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.561/2002 dated 18.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt.Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Ms.L.Maithili, Advocate Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 8.12.2009 Date of pronouncement : 11.1.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Secondhand Press Flow Degating System, Press flow Robot for moulding machine and Tote Bin Feed Conveyor imported by the appellants herein in March 2002 have been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.40,000/- together with applicable duty and penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on the importers. The value of the machines was also enhanced. The Additional Commissioner also confiscated all the three machines for absence of valid licence which was required as the machines were over 10 years old. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the importers contention that only one item namely Press Flow Robot was 10 years old and this machine alone required an import licence. However, he upheld the confiscation of the other two machines also in view of the fact that in spite of knowledge that the goods were secondhand, in view of the reduced values, the appellants sought to clear all 3 machines as new ones. The challenge in the present appeal is only to the confiscation of the Press Flow Degating System and Tote Bin Feed Conveyor on the ground that since only one machine was liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) for violation of EXIM Policy, it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to confiscate the remaining items in dispute for misdeclaration as new machines.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority (Addl. Commissioner) has held that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the ITC Policy as well as for misdeclaration of description and quantity (excess PCBs were supplied). Therefore, the goods have been rightly held liable to confiscation and the importers have been rightly held liable to penalty. No ground has been made out for interference with the quantum of fine and penalty which is very reasonable having regard to the loaded value of the machines viz. Rs.4,03,268/-. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in open court on 11.1.2010)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
5