2015 (2) TMI 221 - AT - Customs

Import of old and used digital multifunction printing and copying machines during the period 05.06.2012 to 20.08.2013 without obtaining proper licence - Held that - for the import of the subject machines during the period in dispute, there is no requirement of licence. In these circumstances, relying on the decisions of the honble Madras High Court in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution (2013 (6) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), we hold that the respondents have correctly imported the goods without obtaining the licence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned orders. - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Whether the imported old and used digital multifunction printing and copying machines were brought in without a valid license under the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the adjudication orders against the respondents were correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy.
3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court's observations in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution Vs. Addl. Commr. of Cus., Chennai are applicable to the present case.
4. Whether the Handbook of Procedures V.1 2009-2014 and Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 provide for a purposive interpretation regarding the import of second-hand capital goods, specifically digital multifunction printing and copying machines.
5. Whether the decisions in Priyam Enterprises case and Commissioner of Customs v. City Office Equipment provide clarity on the import policy regime for second-hand capital goods.
6. Whether a license was required for the import of the machines in question during the disputed period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of old and used digital multifunction printing and copying machines without a proper license under the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority initially detained the goods for lack of a valid license and alleged suppression of the goods' value. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders, stating that the machines were freely importable under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, para 2.1.7. The Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding that the goods were correctly imported without a license.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the adjudication orders was based on the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy, which allowed for the free import of the machines in question. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the impugned orders.
3. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution were considered relevant to the present case, where it was established that the import of the machines during the disputed period did not require a license, aligning with the Foreign Trade Policy provisions.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the Handbook of Procedures V.1 2009-2014 and Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 to provide a purposive interpretation regarding the import of second-hand capital goods, specifically digital multifunction printing and copying machines. It was concluded that the Handbook of Procedures allowed for free import of such machines, as there was no conflict between the two policy documents.
5. The decisions in Priyam Enterprises case and Commissioner of Customs v. City Office Equipment were referenced to clarify the import policy regime for second-hand capital goods. It was highlighted that the Handbook of Procedures specified conditions for restricted items but did not impose such conditions on digital multifunction printing and copying machines, making them freely importable during the disputed period.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that no license was required for the import of the machines in question during the disputed period, as they fell under the category of goods that could be freely imported based on the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the impugned orders that set aside the adjudication orders against the respondents.

← Previous Next →