2019 (12) TMI 736 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - imposition of redemption fine as well as penalty - Valuation of imported goods - Multi Functional Digital copiers (MFD) - enhancement of value - whether the consignment MFD copiers imported prior to 05.06.2012 when the restriction was imposed upon them are liable to confiscation under section 111(d) for violation of Foreign Trade Policy? - HELD THAT - Prior to this date, restrictions were imposed only on photocopiers and not on Multi Functional Digital Copiers explicitly. This issue is no longer res-integra and the three Member Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI VERSUS ASIAN COPIERS 2015 (2) TMI 1221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has, by a majority decision, decided that import of Multi Functional Digital Copiers prior to 05.06.2012 was not restricted. While deciding this matter, they have also considered the judgment of the Tribunal Chennai in the case of M/S UNITECH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 2012 (8) TMI 215 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , relied upon by the Ld. DR - Respectfully following the ratio of this decision, it is held that the import of the impugned goods is not restricted and their confiscation under section 111(d) is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. A plain reading of the Order-in-Original shows that confiscation was held under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 which pertains to import in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions and not under section 111(m) which deals with confiscation for under valuation, etc. - thus, the confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 needs to be set aside - Consequently, the redemption fine imposed under section 125 on the appellant also needs to be set aside - The penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is consequent to the goods being held liable for confiscation under section 111. As the goods are not liable for confiscation under section 111(d), the penalty imposed under section 112(a) also needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal involving confiscation of imported Multi Functional Digital copiers, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Goods: The appellant challenged the confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the MFD copiers imported were not restricted prior to 05.06.2012. The Revenue contended that all copiers, including MFD copiers, should be treated as restricted once photocopiers are restricted. The Tribunal referred to precedents and held that import of MFD copiers before the restriction date was not prohibited. Therefore, the confiscation under section 111(d) was deemed unsustainable and set aside.

Redemption Fine: The redemption fine imposed under section 125 was challenged along with the confiscation. Since the confiscation was found unjustified, the Tribunal also set aside the redemption fine, as it was directly linked to the confiscation.

Penalty Imposition: The penalty imposed under section 112(a) was contested based on the goods being held liable for confiscation. As the goods were not deemed confiscable, the penalty was considered unwarranted and set aside. The Tribunal clarified that the penalty was a consequence of the confiscation, and since the confiscation was overturned, the penalty was also nullified.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order regarding the confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty. The decision was based on the finding that the import of MFD copiers before the restriction date was permissible, rendering the confiscation and associated penalties invalid.