2015 (6) TMI 12 - AT - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - import of Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines - confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - lower appellate authority has not considered the facts of repetitive offence committed by the respondents while reducing the redemption fine and penalty. It is seen that the appellants cleared identical goods repetitively and the impugned import is the third one. - Digital Multifunction printing and photocopying machines are restricted items as per amended para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy only w.e.f. 28.03.2013. Whereas, the impugned import was made on 05.08.2009. In view of the Hon ble High Court Order 2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the impugned order reducing the redemption fine and penalty is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents for importing 'Digital Multifunction Printing and Photocopying Machines.'
2. Interpretation of whether the imported goods were restricted items prior to 28.02.2013 based on the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal that reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents for importing the machines. The adjudicating authority initially ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower appellate authority reduced the redemption fine and penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The appellant argued that since this was the third repetitive offense, reduction in fine and penalty was unjustified, citing a Larger Bench decision. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate contended that the goods were not restricted items during the relevant period and referred to a High Court judgment supporting this claim. The Tribunal noted the repetitive nature of the offense and the High Court's decision, setting aside the reduction and remanding the matter for re-determination.

2. The key issue regarding the interpretation of whether the imported goods were restricted items before 28.02.2013 was crucial. The respondent argued that the machines were not restricted items until the specific amendment in the Foreign Trade Policy on 28.02.2013. They referenced a High Court judgment which supported their stance. The Tribunal analyzed the High Court's decision, which clarified that the machines became restricted items only from 28.02.2013 onwards. Since the impugned import occurred on 05.08.2009, the Tribunal relied on the High Court's interpretation and set aside the earlier order, remanding the case for re-assessment based on the High Court's judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering the High Court's interpretation regarding the restriction status of the imported goods. The matter was sent back to the lower appellate authority for re-determination of the redemption fine and penalty in light of the High Court's judgment, ensuring a fair and accurate assessment based on the legal interpretation provided by the High Court.