2007 (4) TMI 29 - AT - Customs

Confiscation, fine and penalty Alleged that appellant goods is not computer colour matching equipment but it is spectrophotometer and accordingly original authority enhanced its value, denied the benefit of Notification and also imposed fine and penalty Held that allegation is not correct and set aside accordingly

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification.
3. Valuation of imported goods for customs purposes.
4. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
5. Imposition of fine and penalty on the importer.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal examined whether the imported machine qualified as "computer colour matching equipment" to avail the benefit of a concessional rate of duty. The expert deputed by the appellants demonstrated that the machine, a spectrophotometer, could function as a colour matching equipment only when connected to a computer with specific software. The Tribunal concluded that without the necessary computer and software, the imported machine did not meet the criteria for "computer colour matching equipment" as per the Customs Notification.

Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:
The Tribunal analyzed the eligibility of the imported goods for the concessional rate of duty under the Customs Notification. It was established that the imported machine did not qualify as "computer colour matching equipment" due to the absence of a computer and software necessary for its operation. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification was deemed unavailable to the importer based on the machine's classification as a spectrophotometer rather than a colour matching equipment.

Valuation Dispute:
A valuation dispute arose regarding the declared value of the imported goods for customs purposes. The lower authorities had enhanced the value of the goods without valid reasons, leading to a discrepancy in the assessed value. The Tribunal emphasized that the declared value should be accepted unless exceptional circumstances, as specified under the Customs Valuation Rules, warranted a deviation. Since no such grounds were established by the authorities, the Tribunal upheld the declared value of the goods and directed the original authority to re-quantify the duty amount accordingly.

Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty:
The original authority had ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, along with imposing a fine and penalty on the importer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the fine and penalty, ruling that the goods were not liable for confiscation as they were not prohibited or restricted items. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of the fine and penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal sustained the impugned order, except for the valuation of the goods, directing the original authority to re-quantify the duty amount based on the declared value. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision regarding the fine and penalty imposed on the importer. The case was disposed of accordingly, with the operative portion of the order pronounced on a specified date.