2016 (12) TMI 643 - AT - Customs

Import of old and digital multi function copiers - whether restricted goods or not? - Held that - Ld. Counsel is correct in his submissions that the impugned items came to be restricted for imports only with effect from 05.06.2012. It is also seen from the impugned order that goods have been found liable for confiscation and hence fined under section 125 ibid and penalty imposed under section 112(a) ibid only on the store that they are restricted, which was indeed not the case at the time of import. This being the case, fine and penalty imposed on the appellant cannot sustain and hence are set aside accordingly. We do not however interfere with the enhancement of declared value of the impugned items. Appeal partly allowed as above.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over import of old and digital multi-function copiers; Validity of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed; Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy of 2009-14; Third import by the importer; Enhanced declared value.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the import of old and digital multi-function copiers, with the original authority holding that specific licensing requirements were not met, leading to the confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of ?4,50,000 and a penalty of ?3,00,000 were imposed under sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, respectively. Additionally, the declared value of ?13,36,964 was enhanced to ?17,24,892.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the multi-function devices were only categorized as restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy of 2009-14 from 05.06.2012 onwards. Therefore, the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty was deemed unsustainable. However, the appellants did not challenge the enhanced declared value and accepted it.

On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that this was the importer's third import, suggesting that the fines and penalties imposed were justified and did not warrant any interference.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the counsel's argument that the impugned items were restricted for imports only from 05.06.2012 onwards. As the goods were found liable for confiscation and subsequently fined and penalized based on their restricted status, which was not the case at the time of import, the Tribunal concluded that the fines and penalties imposed could not be sustained. Consequently, the fine and penalty were set aside, while the enhancement of the declared value of the items was upheld. The appeal was partially allowed based on the above findings.