ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The applicants made a request to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the applicants. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned JDR.
2. In this case the applicant made an import of battery charger of cellular phone and claimed the clearance under Customs Tariff Heading 8504.50 and Para-22 of the Exim Policy 1992-97. On examination the goods were found being capable of being used as consumer goods. Hence they come under the restricted category. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and importers were given option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants filed appeal, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/-.
3. The contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the goods in question are Plug in Saver/Charger (battery charger) and they are allowed under Para-22 of the Import and Export of EXIM Policy 1992-97. The contention of the applicants is that the consumer goods are those which directly satisfy the human needs and the battery chargers cannot be said to be a consumer goods as these are used for charging the cellular phone.
4. Perused the appeal papers and considered the submissions made by the learned JDR. The appellants declared the goods in the Bill of Entry as electricity-battery charger, whereas on examination the goods were found to be charger for cellular phone. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order held that the goods in question cannot be treated to be conventional battery chargers. Nothing contrary to the finding in the impugned order was produced by the appellants. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.