2018 (6) TMI 142 - AT - Customs

Import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers / Devices with Accessories and Attachment - violation of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) - The invoice did not contain details like year country of manufacture whether reconditioned or refurbished etc. - Imposition of redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The amendment made in the FTP on 28/02/2013 has mandated that these impugned items can only be imported after obtaining a licence and in the present cases the appellant had not obtained the licence for importing the impugned goods - As the import is after the amendment and therefore the import is in violation of the FTP and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned orders imposing redemption fine and penalties - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Valuation of imported goods based on Chartered Engineer certificate under Customs Valuation Rules
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalties for import violations under Foreign Trade Policy
- Interpretation of FTP amendments post-28/02/2013 regarding restricted goods import

Analysis:
1. The Revenue sought early hearing for 11 appeals with similar issues, where 8 appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner on merit, and one was dismissed on limitation. Two appeals were already disposed of by the Tribunal. The remaining 8 appeals involved challenges to the valuation done by the appellants based on Chartered Engineer certificates and the imposition of redemption fines and penalties.

2. The appellants contested the imposition of redemption fines and penalties, not the valuation. They argued that the goods imported, used digital multifunctional machines, fell under the second-hand capital goods category, freely importable as per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). They cited relevant FTP provisions and court decisions supporting the free import of such goods.

3. The Revenue contended that post the FTP amendment on 28/02/2013, the imported goods were categorized as restricted, requiring a separate license. They referred to court decisions, including the Madras High Court and Tribunal rulings, emphasizing the need for a license post-amendment for importing such goods.

4. The Tribunal examined the FTP amendment of 28/02/2013, which mandated a license for importing the impugned goods. Since the appellants did not obtain the necessary license for import, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of redemption fines and penalties, citing precedents from the Madras High Court and Tribunal decisions. Consequently, all 8 appeals were dismissed, affirming the Orders-in-Original.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the settled interpretation post-FTP amendment, aligning with the requirements for importing restricted goods. The judgment highlighted the necessity of complying with licensing regulations post-amendment, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and upholding the imposition of fines and penalties as per the Orders-in-Original.