2017 (8) TMI 459 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - old and used digital multifunctional print and copier machines - misdeclaration of value - Held that - the restrictions were imposed from June 2012 whereas the appellants imported the multifunctional copying machines prior to June 2012 when the said item was not made restricted - the appellant s case is covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems 2013 (5) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances wherein the Hon ble High Court of Madras has held that import of goods have taken place earlier i.e., before 5th June 2012. Therefore, such reliance made on the Notification will not help the respondents in any manner to advance their case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Valuation of imported goods
- Allegation of import restrictions
- Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy
- Interpretation of relevant legal provisions
- Adjudication process and penalties

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported used digital multifunctional print and copier machines, declaring a value of ?23,97,469. However, doubts arose due to incomplete invoice details, leading to a re-assessment by a Chartered Engineer, valuing the goods at ?32,02,763. The Department accepted this valuation, confiscating the goods with an option for redemption on payment of ?10,00,000. A personal penalty of ?3,00,000 was also imposed. The appellant contested the valuation, arguing the goods were not secondhand photocopiers but digital multifunctional machines. The Tribunal found the valuation reasonable, considering the discrepancy and the assessment process.

Allegation of Import Restrictions:
The Department alleged that the goods were photocopiers, restricted for import under the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant contended that the items were digital multifunctional printers and copiers, not subject to the same restrictions. The Tribunal noted that the restrictions came into effect in June 2012, while the goods were imported in 2009. Relying on legal precedents and the Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the import was allowed when the item was not restricted, thus dismissing the import restriction allegation.

Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy:
The appellant argued that the goods imported were not secondhand photocopiers requiring a license but digital multifunctional printers exempt from licensing before June 2012. Citing legal decisions, the appellant contended that the import was lawful at the time it occurred. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the Madras High Court judgment to support the appellant's position and rejecting the contention that the goods fell under a restricted category.

Interpretation of Relevant Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions, including the Foreign Trade Policy, to determine the applicability of import restrictions and licensing requirements. Considering the timing of the import and the evolving classification of the goods, the Tribunal interpreted the provisions in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of restrictions at the time of import.

Adjudication Process and Penalties:
Following the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, the appellant appealed the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal, after reviewing submissions and legal arguments, set aside the impugned order, finding it unsustainable in law based on the timing of import and the legal interpretations provided. The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.