2024 (5) TMI 812 - AT - Customs

Detention of imported item - restricted goods - import of Multi- Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) - violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015 -2020 framed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and the Wastes Management Rules - Absolute Confiscation - Penalty - HELD THAT - We find that the issue is no more res-integra. The issue regarding confiscation of used Digital Multifunctional machine was considered by various authorities including the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (1) TMI 1324 - SUPREME COURT and Digital Express 2020 (10) TMI 184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . In the absence of any evidence regarding margin of profit, it is settled that, such goods can be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of 10% of enhanced value and penalty of 15% of the enhanced value. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of allowing release of goods subject to payment of fine and penalty as held by Appellate authority. It was not the case of Commissioner (appeals) that goods in the case were not liable for confiscation, since they are imported in violations of various non-tariff provisions of Customs Act and other Statutory provisions. Thus, appeals are partially allowed and upheld the order of confiscation. However adjudicating authority is directed to release the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 3626892 dated 16.10.2017 to respondent on payment of appropriate Customs duty on enhanced value and on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,70,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,85,000/-. Similarly, adjudicating authority is directed to release the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 3504084 dated 05.10.2017 to respondent on payment of appropriate Customs duty on enhanced value and on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the result the appeals are allowed partially subject to the above conditions.

Summary

Issues involved: Confiscation of imported used Digital Multifunctional machines, imposition of penalty under Customs Act 1962.

Issue 1: Confiscation of imported goods
The Respondent imported Digital Multifunctional Machines and Printers/Devices with accessories, which were subjected to inspection by a Chartered Engineer. The declared values were enhanced by the Engineer, leading to absolute confiscation orders u/s 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under section 112(a)(i) of the Act. The Appellate authority allowed the appeals without specifying the penalty amounts, prompting the revenue to file the present appeals.

Issue 2: Violation of Import Regulations
The Learned AR argued that the imported goods violated provisions of Customs Act 1962, Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, E-Waste Management Rules, and other statutory regulations. The goods were imported against guidelines restricting such items for home consumption. The Respondent's counsel cited various Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court cases where the release of similar goods was allowed, emphasizing that the goods were not prohibited but restricted for import.

Judgment Summary:
Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found the issue was settled by previous judgments, including the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that the goods, although imported in violation of regulations, were not liable for absolute confiscation. Redemption of the goods was allowed upon payment of redemption fine and penalty based on the enhanced value. The Appellate authority's decision to release the goods subject to fine and penalty was upheld. However, clarity was sought on whether the adjudicating authority could pass a fresh order for redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal directed the release of the imported goods upon payment of appropriate Customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty, partially allowing the appeals subject to specified conditions.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partially allowed, and the order of confiscation was upheld. The goods were directed to be released to the Respondent upon payment of Customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty as determined by the Tribunal.