AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ld. Counsel vehemently opposes the first appellate order on the ground that the goods brought to India were not restricted goods and that is not
covered by the EXIM Policy of 2004-09. The goods were only GPS and Modem but not the GPS and trans-receiver. Such goods are not covered by
the EXIM Policy. Therefore, the classification adopted by the Revenue is not correct and neither redemption fine nor penalty imposable.
Revenue supports the adjudication.
Heard both sides and perused record.
Revenue is not in appeal against the appellate order which upheld the classification but granted reduction in redemption fine as well as penalty. In
adjudication the imposition of redemption fine was Rs.3,15,000/- and penalty was Rs.75,000/-. But appellate authority reduced the same to Rs.2 Lakhs
and 50,000/- respectively. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the classification in para 13 of the order recorded as under:-
“13. Description of the impugned goods as per the catalogue and recorded in Para 3.3.3 of the OIO clearly indicates that the said goods satisfy the
definition of GPS Transreceiver. It has also been seen, as discussed in foregoing Paras, that GPS Transreceiver is separate and distinct item and
different from GPS Receiver and Differential GPS. In view of these facts, I hold that the impugned goods are nothing but GPS Transreceivr,
classifiable under CTH 85269190. This holds good not only for the classification under Customs Tariff Act but also for other purposes because of the
nature and use of the goods. Therefore, the contention of the Appellants that rules for deciding the classification under Customs Tariff Act can not be
applied in the case of EXIM Policy is rejected because the said goods are GPS Transreceiver not only because of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for
Interpenetration of the Customs Tariff Act but because of their use nature and functions. Moreover, even as per ITC HSN, the said goods also fall
under 85269190.â€
Although appellant advances a novel argument today that there was no examination of technicality of the goods by any technical institution, such
proposition of appellant was not before either of the authority below. Therefore, such averment on technicality is not entertainable at this stage being a
fresh ground.
The appellate authority appears to have applied his mind to understand whether the goods imported was covered by EXIM policy of 2004-09. He
has noted what that GPS trans-receiver means. He was of the view that GPS receiver is different from GPS trans-receiver. Accordingly he held that
there was licensing requirement under EXIM policy. When no licence was obtained, the goods were liable to confiscation. Law is clear that when the
goods enter into India in contravention of law that becomes smuggled goods under section 2(39) of Customs Act 1962. Considering the imposition of
quantum of redemption fine and penalty to be appropriate as ordered by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
 [Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].