9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 492 - AT - CustomsEnhancement of CIF value - import of consignment of old and used Canon Digital Multifunction Printing and copying Machines - ordered confiscation of the goods for import without licence and mis-declaration of the value, with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine - also imposed penalty on the Respondent under section 112(a) - Held that - As from the Minutes of the Technical Review Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests held on 16.11.2011 it is clear that Government itself treated Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines as different from Photocopying Machines and for this reason only, felt the need to mention the old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines in para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, as items restricted for import and accordingly w.e.f. 05.06.2012 para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy was amended by adding old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machin, in this para as the item restricted for import. It is, therefore, clear that during the period prior to 05.06.2012, the old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines could be import without any licence. See Shivam International case(2013 (3) TMI 408 - CESTAT BANGALORE) and also Anand Impex (2012 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and Sai Graphic System Vs. Commissioner of Custom (2013 (5) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). In favour of assessee. Incorrect value of the goods - Held that - Difference between declared value and the value of the goods according to the Department is very small and as such no evidence has been produced by the Department that the declared transaction value is incorrect and or that the Respondent had made additional payment to the supplier over and above declared value the allegation of mis declaration of value is also without any basis. Revenue s appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under tariff heading 2. Restrictions on import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines 3. Valuation of the imported goods Classification of imported goods under tariff heading: The Respondent imported old and used Canon Digital Multifunction Printing and copying Machines and classified them under tariff heading 84433990. The Department contended that the goods were second-hand Photocopier Machines, restricted for import without a license. The Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that the imported goods were different from Photocopier Machines and not restricted for import. The Revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal analyzed the issue, considering the classification and restrictions on import of similar machines. It was established that during the relevant period, old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines were not restricted for import without a license. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Restrictions on import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines: The dispute centered around whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines could be imported without a license prior to 05.06.2012. The Tribunal examined the Foreign Trade Policy, technical committee minutes, and legal precedents. It was determined that the Government recognized these machines as distinct from Photocopier Machines. The Tribunal cited relevant judgments and the Ministry's clarification to establish that no license was required for importing such machines before 05.06.2012. The decision was supported by the Chartered Engineer's certification that the machines were not e-waste. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act. Valuation of the imported goods: Regarding the valuation of the imported goods, a discrepancy existed between the declared value and the value based on the Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The Department argued for a higher value, alleging misdeclaration. However, the Tribunal found the difference minimal and noted the absence of evidence supporting the Department's claim of incorrect declared value. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the misdeclaration allegation lacked a factual basis. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on this matter, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence to challenge the declared value. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, determining that the imported goods were correctly classified, not subject to import restrictions, and reasonably valued. The decision highlighted the importance of legal interpretations, technical specifications, and evidentiary support in resolving customs disputes.
|
