2017 (12) TMI 32 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item or not? - Used Monitors and used Computer parts - requirement of import license - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the items are not restricted items - since the declared value has been enhanced it is establishing that there is mis-description of the goods. In such circumstances, the redemption fine and penalty would sustain but that imposed by the authorities below is on the higher side - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Import of "Used Monitors and used Computer parts" without a valid license, confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112 (a) respectively.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI revolved around the import of "Used Monitors and used Computer parts" without the required license, leading to the confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department contended that the goods were restricted for import and demanded a valid license, which the importer failed to produce. Consequently, the value of the goods was enhanced, and in the adjudication process, the goods were confiscated with an option to pay a redemption fine under Section 125 and a penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel acknowledged the value enhancement but contested the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty. The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The appellant's counsel relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to argue that there were no restrictions on the import of used Monitors and Computer parts during the relevant period. The Tribunal agreed that the items were not restricted but noted a mis-description due to the enhanced declared value.

The Tribunal concluded that while the redemption fine and penalty were justified, the amounts imposed were excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 2,50,000 and the penalty to &8377; 1,50,000 to ensure justice. The appeal was partly allowed by modifying the impugned order, maintaining the value enhancement but adjusting the redemption fine and penalty amounts. The Tribunal's decision aimed to strike a balance by reducing the financial burden on the appellant while upholding the consequences of mis-description and non-compliance with licensing requirements.

In the final pronouncement, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty, thereby providing relief to the appellant without altering the value enhancement decision.