9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1228 - AT - CustomsSeeking provisional release of confiscated goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - import of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) - prohibited goods 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, as required under paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20 - mis-declaration of value of the imported used MFDs in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Delhi Photocopiers 2021 (8) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that The goods involved in these petitions, are allowed to be provisionally released on the same terms that have been indicated in all the other cases. In the light of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers and the fact that the First Appellate Authority has not brought on record any peculiar / distinguishing facts which were not available in respect of other assessees-appellants who are in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the impugned order as to remand is not sustainable as the same suffers from inconsistency - the Revenue s appeals are liable to be dismissed and the cross objections filed by the respondent are required to be allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 and Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. 2. Requirement of DGFT authorization for the import of second-hand goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20. 3. Customs valuation of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 4. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Imposition of redemption fine, penalties, and compliance with Customs Act procedures. 6. Applicability of provisional release of goods pending appeal based on legal precedents. Compliance with Domestic Laws: The Adjudicating Authority found that the respondent had not complied with the provisions of domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, and the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. The Authority also noted the failure to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second-hand goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20. Customs Valuation and Confiscation: The Adjudicating Authority re-determined the value of the imported goods due to misdeclaration, confiscating units of goods declared as 'Old & Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines with Standard Accessories' under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, redemption fines, penalties, and confiscation were imposed on the importer for non-compliance with customs regulations. Appeal and Legal Precedents: The appellant appealed before the First Appellate Authority, which remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority. However, the appellant challenged the remand decision, citing legal precedents such as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and orders of the CESTAT in similar cases. The inconsistency in the remand decision led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and the allowance of cross objections by the respondent. Provisional Release of Goods: The Tribunal held that the remand order was not sustainable due to inconsistency and directed the Adjudicating Authority to provisionally release the goods in question based on legal precedents. The goods were to be cleared for consumption within 10 days if all other statutory requirements were met. In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were treated as allowed, leading to the direction for provisional release of the goods pending compliance with statutory requirements.
|
