9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1244 - AT - CustomsValuation - import of Old and used Digital Multifunction Printer - enhancement of value - restricted items - Without license - Confiscation - HELD THAT - We hold that the date of importation in this case is from 19.10.2012 to 22.01.2013, which are prior to issuance of DGFT Notification No.35(RE-2012)/2009-2014 dated 28.02.2013. Therefore, following the decisions in the case of Bhawani Enterprises 2017 (11) TMI 974 - CESTAT KOLKATA , we hold that as the import has been affected prior to 28.02.2013, there is no restriction of import of the subject goods. Hence, no specific license is required for import of the impugned goods. In that circumstances, we hold that for enhancement of value, the Chartered Accountant s Certificate cannot be relied upon unless and until there is corroborative evidence. Therefore, we hold that that the goods are not liable for confiscation. No redemption fine can be imposed and no penalty on the respondent. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the import of Digital Multifunction Printers, as old and used items, requires a license for imports made within a specific period. The main question is whether the goods are considered restricted items under relevant trade policies and whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty are justified. Details of the Judgment: 1. The Revenue appealed against an order that deemed the import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers as restricted items, requiring a license for imports made between 19.10.2012 to 22.01.2013. The goods were found to be old and used, with a residual life of more than six years, and minor reconditioning was observed. The value was assessed based on recommendations by a Chartered Engineer, considering various aspects like make & model, technology, and physical condition. The goods were held to be restricted items under the Foreign Trade Policy and import against a valid license was required. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were imposed on the enhanced value. The Tribunal was approached by the Revenue against this order. 2. Referring to the case of Bhawani Enterprises, it was established that no license was required for such imports prior to 28.02.2013. Therefore, the goods were not liable for confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were deemed unsustainable. 3. The Tribunal noted that the imports in question were made before the issuance of a specific notification dated 28.02.2013, as clarified in the Bhawani Enterprises case. It was emphasized that no specific license was necessary for the import of the goods. 4. Relying on previous decisions, including the case of Bhawani Enterprises and Rajesh Exports Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that as the import occurred before 28.02.2013, there was no restriction on the import of the goods. Hence, no specific license was required. The Chartered Engineer's certificate for value enhancement could not be solely relied upon without corroborative evidence. 5. Consequently, it was held that the goods were not liable for confiscation, and no redemption fine or penalty could be imposed on the respondent. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. End of Judgment
|
