2017 (10) TMI 368 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - old used digital multifunction print and copier machines - Department took the view that the impugned goods are restricted for import and required valid license for import, which was not produced by the importer - Held that - reliance placed in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House Versus M/s. City Office Equipment and others 2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that there is no restriction on free import of second hand digital multifunction print and copier machines - confiscation and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of old used digital multifunction print and copier machines without a valid license, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved the import of old used digital multifunction print and copier machines at a declared price of US$ 34,695, which were considered restricted for import by the Department due to the absence of a valid license. The value of the goods was enhanced during adjudication to GSD 148200. The adjudicating authority confiscated the imported goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, offering the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of &8377; 7,80,000 and imposing a penalty of &8377; 3,90,000 on the importer. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case, establishing that there is no restriction on the free import of second-hand digital multifunction print and copier machines. The advocate argued that based on this precedent, there should be no confiscation or penalty imposed on the appellants, although he agreed with the enhanced value of the goods.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the merit in the submissions of the appellant's advocate and the relevance of the High Court judgment. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were not restricted items based on the precedent cited. However, the Tribunal noted that while the goods were found liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, the confiscation and penalty imposed could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the confiscation and penalty imposed on the imported goods, based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the precedent set by the High Court judgment.