2010 (9) TMI 406 - AT - Customs

Confiscation Misdeclaration Old and new photocopiers in the case of import of old and new photocopiers prior to 19-10-05 there was no necessity for possession of licence by the importer of such machines - quantum of fine and penalty not having been challenged by the importers the question of reduction does not arise no case for confiscation of goods enhancement of fine and penalty not arises

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over declared value of imported goods
- Requirement of license for valid import
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty

Analysis:

1. Declared Value Dispute:
The case involves a dispute regarding the declared value of imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared value of Rs. 11,93,010, while the Revenue contested this decision and sought an enhancement of the value to Rs. 13,11,856. The Tribunal acknowledged that the value had been misdeclared, making the goods liable to confiscation. The appellant's counsel agreed to the enhanced value, leading to the Tribunal's decision to accept the higher value.

2. License Requirement for Import:
Another crucial issue in the case was whether a license was required for the valid import of the goods in question, which were old and new photocopiers imported in November 2003. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Cochin, which clarified that no license was necessary for importing such machines before October 19, 2005. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not imported in violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires a license for valid import.

3. Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty:
Regarding the issue of confiscation, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 13,11,856 to Rs. 2 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 13,11,856 to Rs. 50,000. The Revenue sought an increase in the quantum of fine and penalty, but the Tribunal rejected this plea, emphasizing that since the importers did not challenge the fine and penalty amounts, there was no basis for reduction. The Tribunal also clarified that the violation of Section 111(d) had been set aside, further supporting its decision to reject the Revenue's appeal for an increase in fine and penalty amounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal by accepting the enhanced value of the goods but dismissed the Revenue's request for an increase in fine and penalty amounts. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the declared value, license requirements for import, and the imposition of fines and penalties, ensuring a fair and reasoned decision based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.