2017 (11) TMI 1250 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted goods - import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers Copiers/Scanners etc. without a valid license - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that, for violation of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, the goods are not liable for confiscation, in that circumstance, redemption fine and penalty are not imposable. Scope of SCN - Held that - ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed the redemption fine and penalty on the charge of undervaluation and the same is not the allegation in the show cause notice - ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. In that circumstance, redemption fine and penalty on the charge of under valuation is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported goods. Interpretation of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy- 2009-14. Scope of show cause notice regarding charges of confiscation and penalty. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) in imposing redemption fine and penalty for undervaluation.

Analysis:
The appellant imported old and used Digital Multifunction Printer Copier/Scanner/Facsimile Machine without the required license as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy- 2009-14. The goods were assessed and duty paid, but later found to be restricted goods. Proceedings were initiated for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were not liable for confiscation due to the absence of restrictions at the time of import, but imposed redemption fine and penalty for overvaluation.

The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the show cause notice scope by penalizing for undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the notice charged only for contravention of Para 2.17 and penalty imposition, not for undervaluation. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous case and departmental acceptance of a decision, concluding that confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not justified for the violation of Para 2.17.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in imposing redemption fine and penalty for undervaluation beyond the show cause notice scope. As the charge was not raised in the notice, the penalties were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the redemption fine and penalty for undervaluation, providing relief to the appellant.