2017 (10) TMI 369 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - old/used digital multifunctional - 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 prior to 05.06.2012 - the impugned order is modified by setting aside, the redemption fine and penalty imposed without disturbing the enhancement of value - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Import of old/used digital multifunctional machines without a valid license, enhancement of goods value, confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the import of old/used digital multifunctional machines without a valid license, where the Department contended that the goods required a valid license for import, which was not produced by the importer. The value of the goods was also enhanced during adjudication. 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 under Section 125 and imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the machines became restricted items only after a certain date, and since the goods were not restricted during the relevant period, the redemption fine and penalty imposed were unsustainable. The counsel referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which held that there was no restriction on the free import of such machines before a specific date. The counsel agreed to the enhancement in the value of the goods.

The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the hearing. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The tribunal held that the imported goods were not restricted items during the relevant period and that the adjudicating authority had wrongly invoked Section 111(d) for confiscation. Therefore, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was deemed unsustainable and set aside, while upholding the enhancement of the goods' value.

In the final decision, the tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the redemption fine and penalty without affecting the enhancement of the goods' value. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above findings.