2017 (12) TMI 33 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - used computer parts and components - specific licence for the goods imported as per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - Notwithstanding the protestations of the ld. Advocate that the goods have come without intimation and that Bill of Entry has not been filed by them, the fact remains that they have owned the import and also participated in subsequent proceedings before the customs authorities and the adjudicating authority - It is also not disputed that they themselves submitted by their letter that the goods have been imported for test - confiscation upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of used computer parts and components for customs clearance.
2. Requirement of specific license for imported goods.
3. Imposition of fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of used computer parts and components, declaring the value as ?63,77,851. The goods were examined by a Chartered Engineer specialized in computers, who confirmed that the goods were used. The department contended that specific licenses were required for the imported goods as per the Foreign Trade Policy. In adjudication, goods valued at ?75,90,054 were confiscated, and the appellant was allowed to re-export processed goods on payment of a fine of ?7,50,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of ?3 lakhs was imposed under Section 112 of the Act.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that they were not aware of the consignment until the Bill of Entry was filed by the foreign supplier. They claimed that being a Software Technology Park (STP) unit, the equipment was allowed to be imported duty-free. However, the department pointed out that the appellant had stated in letters that the goods were imported for testing and re-export.

3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that despite the appellant's claims of lack of awareness about the import, they had participated in the proceedings and confirmed the import purpose in their letters. Therefore, the order of confiscation and penalty imposition was upheld. However, the Tribunal decided to reduce the redemption fine to ?1,50,000 and the penalty to ?50,000. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty imposition due to the appellant's acknowledgment of the import purpose, despite claims of lack of awareness initially. The reduction of the redemption fine and penalty was granted based on the circumstances of the case.