2018 (7) TMI 1228 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Redemption fine and penalty - import of restricted goods - second hand personal computers/labtops including their refurbished/reconditioned spares parts - requirement of special import authorization from DGFT - Held that - In their own case for the earlier import this Tribunal in the case of M/S. GAGAN IMPEX VERSUS C.C.E PATPARGANJ NEW DELHI 2016 (10) TMI 335 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that in terms of circular no. 27/2011- Cus dated 04.07.2011 issued by CBEC at Sl. no. B 1110 of the schedule 3 relating to waste electrical and electronic assemblies can be imported with permission from ministry of Environment and Forest and said permission has been obtained by the appellant vide their certificate dated 17.06.2003 therefore it cannot be held that the goods are restricted in question. As this Tribunal has held that the goods in question cannot be held as restricted goods in that circumstances the redemption fine and penalties are not imposable on the appellant therefore impugned orders qua holding that goods are liable for confiscation are set aside consequently redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against redemption and penalty imposed on imported refurbished data graphic display tubes.

Analysis:
The appellants imported refurbished 17 inches data graphic display tubes and were challenged for redemption and penalty. The goods were declared as refurbished, examined by a Chartered Engineer, and found to have a residual life of about 5 years. The appellants lacked specific import authorization from DGFT as per foreign trade policy, leading to the imposition of redemption and penalty. The adjudicating authority held the goods as restricted and confiscated them under the Customs Act, allowing release on payment of fine and penalty. The appellant appealed against these orders.

The Tribunal noted that the issue in all appeals was common and disposed of them collectively. The appellants argued that a previous Tribunal order had allowed the import of similar goods with permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, indicating that the goods were not restricted. The AR supported the impugned orders.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal referred to the earlier case where identical goods were imported by the appellant. It was observed that refurbished spares of capital goods were freely importable under certain conditions. The Tribunal also referenced Circular No. 27/2011-Cus, which allowed the import of specific goods with permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, a permission that the appellants had obtained. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were not restricted, overturning the redemption fine and penalties imposed.

The Tribunal held that since the goods were not restricted, the redemption fine and penalties were not sustainable. The valuation assessed by the adjudicating authority was upheld as uncontested by the appellant. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.