2022 (9) TMI 1225 - AT - Customs

Seeking provisional release if seized goods - import of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) (second hand goods) - to be classified under CTH 84433100 or not - non-compliance with the provisions of Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012 - failure to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods - misdeclaration of value of the imported used MFDs in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The ratio of tdecision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S DELHI PHOTOCOPIERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) CHENNAI II ORS. 2021 (8) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT has been followed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUTTY IMPEX 2022 (9) TMI 1049 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal for provisional release of impugned goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and ordered provisional release of the impugned goods. The respondent had filed a Bill-of-Entry for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers/Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models. The Revenue ordered a first check examination to verify compliance with various rules and regulations. The Adjudicating Authority found that the respondent had not complied with BIS Act, failed to obtain DGFT authorization, and mis-declared the value of the imported goods. Consequently, the value of the goods was re-determined, and confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were imposed. The appellant appealed this decision.

The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered provisional release of the goods, following a previous decision of the CESTAT and a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellant Revenue challenged this decision before the CESTAT Chennai. The CESTAT Member (Judicial) considered the rival contentions and reviewed the relevant judgments. The Member noted that the ratio decidendi from a previous case was applicable in the present case as well. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the provisional release of the goods. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 23.09.2022.