2017 (10) TMI 760 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted goods - old and used photocopiers - confiscation - penalty - Held that - the import of photocopiers had become restricted only after 19.10.2005. Goods imported herein have been done by a Bill of Entry filed on 27.04.2004. This being the case, they cannot be confiscated for want of a specific import licence and accordingly, the provisions of section 111 (d) will not be applicable in this matter. The interests of justice would be adequately served in this case by reducing the redemption fine imposed under section 111 (m) to ₹ 3,00,000/- and penalty imposed u/s 112 (a) ibid to ₹ 2,00,000/- - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the import of "old and used photocopiers" with a declared value discrepancy.
2. Alleged unauthorized import in contravention of the Foreign Trade Act.
3. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the original authority.
4. Appeal against the decision of the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the import of "old and used photocopiers" with a declared value discrepancy. The appellant accepted the proposed enhanced value after inspection by a Chartered Engineer. The original authority determined the value of the goods higher than the declared value and ordered confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty under section 112(a) of the same Act.

2. The appellant argued that prior to 19.10.2005, there were no restrictions on the import of such goods, citing a relevant Tribunal order. The goods in question were imported through a Bill of Entry filed on 27.04.2004, before restrictions were imposed. The Tribunal noted that while there was an under-declaration of value, the confiscation under section 111(d) was not applicable. However, due to the discrepancy in the declared value, the goods were found liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal considered the interests of justice and reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,00,000. An additional redemption fine imposed for "undeclared connectivity and variations in the model" was deemed to lack legal basis and was set aside. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that while the goods were liable for confiscation due to the value discrepancy, considering the circumstances and lack of import restrictions at the time of import, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The additional redemption fine was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed with appropriate relief granted in accordance with the law.