2013 (10) TMI 1329 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction on Import of Old and Used Digital Multifunction Printers
2. Valuation of Imported Goods
3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty

Summary:

1. Restriction on Import of Old and Used Digital Multifunction Printers:
The Lower Adjudicating Authority held that the import of old and used digital multifunction printers was a restricted item as per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-2014 and paras 2.33 and 2.33A of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP), requiring a valid specific license. However, the appellant argued that up to 28-2-2013, there was no restriction on such imports as decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 890 to 894, 949 to 961, and 1170 to 1188 of 2012, dated 14-3-2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the said goods were freely importable up to 28-2-2013 without any valid license, and the DGFT confirmed not to file an SLP against the Madras High Court judgment, making the matter settled.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The Lower Adjudicating Authority enhanced the assessable value of the imported goods based on the Chartered Engineer's report and applied Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules (CVR), 2007, instead of Rule 3. The appellant contested that the declared value was correct and true, and there was no misdeclaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the declared value was arbitrarily rejected without sufficient evidence, and the enhancement was based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate without proper justification. The guidelines issued by the C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 4/2008-Cus., dated 12-2-2008, were not followed correctly, and there were no reasonable grounds to reject the transaction value.

3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Lower Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(d), 111(m), and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that there was no misdeclaration or undervaluation, and the acceptance of the enhanced value was to avoid demurrage charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were not restricted/prohibited under any law, and there was no contravention of any prohibition or restriction. The confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) was set aside, and consequently, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was also not sustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.