2016 (11) TMI 929 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the goods imported are liable for confiscation as having been imported without license, in contravention of condition laid in Para 2.17 of the FTP? - Held that - The restriction imposed is the case of MMFD is only from 05/06/2012 onwards as seen from para 2.17 of the FTP. The appellant had imported the goods prior to 05/06/2012. Further the classification description as well as the certificate of the Chartered Engineer shows that the imported goods are not per se photocopiers. Therefore the confiscation of the goods on the ground that they are restricted is without any legal or factual basis. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported goods are liable for confiscation for being imported without a license, in contravention of conditions under Para 2.17 of the FTP.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Multi Function Digital Photocopying machines, which were detained by Customs at Hyderabad on the grounds of being hazardous substances and prohibited for import under Hazardous Wastes Rules and restricted under Para 2.17 of the FTP. The appellant argued that the goods were not hazardous e-waste but MFD machines falling under a different classification. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to support the appellant's claim that the restriction on MFD machines came into effect after the import date, thus the confiscation was unjustified.

The appellant filed a miscellaneous application to include additional grounds in the appeal, which was accepted as the grounds were based on existing facts and evidence. The goods were certified as MFD copiers by a Chartered Engineer, and it was established that the imported goods were not simply photocopiers but had additional functions like printing, scanning, faxing, and memory functions. The department's decision to treat them as mere photocopiers for confiscation was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal, following a previous case precedent, held that the confiscation of goods and the imposition of fines and penalties were not justified. The orders for confiscation were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs. The decision was made based on the fact that the goods were imported before the restriction on MFD machines came into effect, and they were not classified as mere photocopiers but as multi-function copiers.