2023 (10) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used Printer cum Multi function Device of Xerox/Canon make from USA - enhancement of value - enhancement of value done on the basis of the value estimation given by the Chartered Engineer - Confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Appellant contended that they have accepted the enhanced value only to avoid demurrage. HELD THAT - The contention of the importer is agreed upon. The consent given before clearance of the goods does not take away their right to appeal on this issue. However, it is found that the enhancement of value in this case was done as per the value estimation done by the Chartered Engineer. The Appellant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate their claim that the value was enhanced arbitrarily. Hence, the enhanced value agreed with and it does not require to interfere with the enhanced value determined in the impugned order. Confiscation of goods - HELD THAT - The goods imported are used Digital multi function printer, which are not freely importable. Para 2.17 of FTP 2009-14 was amended w.e.f.28.02.2013 and subsequent to the amendment the said goods became importable only against authorization. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 06/05/2013, ie, after 28.02.2013 and hence the goods were restricted goods. Since the Appellant was not having any authorization, the goods were liable for confiscation. Accordingly, it is found that the goods were rightly confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on redemption fine. Thus, there are no infirmity in the order of confiscation of the goods. Quantum of redemption fine - HELD THAT - In the case of NAVPAD ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 2008 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , affirmed by Hon ble Kerala High Court, it has been held that fine upto 10% and penalty upto 5% would be reasonable when goods were imported against restriction in EXIM policy - It is observed that the Redemption fine imposed in this case works out to 30% of the declared value, which is very high. Accordingly, the redemption imposed reduced from 4,22,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. As the penalty imposed is works out to 5% of the declared value, the penalty imposed in the impugned order is upheld. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the enhancement of value of imported goods, confiscation of goods for violation of import restrictions, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Enhancement of value:
The Appellant imported old and used Printer cum Multi function Device and declared a value of USD 28025, which was enhanced by the assessing officer to USD 38617.36 based on a report from a Chartered Engineer. The Appellant contested the enhancement, claiming they accepted the value only to avoid demurrage charges. The Tribunal held that the Appellant's consent before clearance did not waive their right to appeal the value. However, since no evidence was provided to show the enhancement was arbitrary, the Tribunal upheld the enhanced value.

Confiscation of goods:
The imported goods were used Digital multi function printers, which were restricted under para 2.17 of FTP 2009-14. The goods were imported without authorization after the amendment on 28.02.2013, making them liable for confiscation. The Tribunal found the confiscation justified and allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods.

Redemption fine and penalty:
The Appellant argued that the redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000 was excessive, citing precedents for lower fines. The Tribunal acknowledged the high fine and reduced it to Rs.2,00,000, considering the reasonable limit set by previous cases. The penalty imposed, amounting to 5% of the declared value, was upheld. The Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine but maintaining the penalty.

Separate Judgement:
The judgment was delivered by HON'BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) while hearing the appeal filed by M/s Star Copiers against the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal upheld the enhanced value and confiscation of the goods but reduced the redemption fine while upholding the penalty.