9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1169 - AT - CustomsSeeking provisional release of the impugned goods - import of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) - non-compliance with the provisions of Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012 - failure to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods, as required under paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20 - mis-declaration of value of the imported used MFDs in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUTTY IMPEX 2022 (9) TMI 1049 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well - Following the above ratio decidendi, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues: Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing appeal by respondent-assessee and ordering provisional release of impugned goods.
Analysis: 1. Compliance with Laws and Regulations: The respondent imported used Digital Multifunctional Printers/Devices (MFDs) and classified them under CTH 84433100. The Revenue ordered a first check examination to verify compliance with various laws and regulations, including the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, the Electronics and Information Technology Goods Order, 2012, and the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority found non-compliance with these provisions, leading to the rejection of the declared value and re-determination under Customs Valuation Rules, confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties. 2. Order-in-Appeal and Provisional Release: The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by the respondent, ordering the provisional release of the impugned goods. This decision was based on precedents set by the CESTAT and the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases. The Authority followed the principles established in previous judgments, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 3. Judicial Precedents and Decision: The First Appellate Authority's decision was influenced by previous judgments of the CESTAT and the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly in cases involving similar issues of provisional release of goods. The Authority's decision was in line with established legal principles and was upheld by the Member (Judicial) based on the consistency with previous rulings. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was a result of applying the same legal reasoning as in earlier cases. In conclusion, the judgment by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to allow the appeal by the respondent and order the provisional release of the impugned goods. The decision was based on the non-compliance of the respondent with various laws and regulations, the application of legal principles from previous judgments, and the consistency in judicial precedents.
|
