9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 590 - AT - CustomsConfiscation - import of Digital Multifunction Printers - restricted items or not - requirement of license to import or not - HELD THAT - In this case, the issue has been raised by the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the date of importation is 28.02.2013 whereas the ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that it should be 13.02.2013 - The said issue has been answered by the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of RAJESH EXPORTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2022 (3) TMI 239 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein it has been held that the date is when the goods left the last Port in the country from which the import is affected and the Tribunal has observed The relevant date for import of the goods by air is the date on which Airway bill is issued that on which date goods left the last airport in the country from which the import is affected. Admittedly, in this case the Airway bill has been issued on 17/10/2017 and thereafter there is no control of the importer or the seller of the goods. In that circumstance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant date for import by air is the date on which Airway bill has been issued i.e. 17/10/2017 and the date of import of the impugned gold is 17/10/2017. Thus, the date of importation in this case is 13.02.2013, which is prior to issuance of DGFT Notification No. 35 (RE- 2012)/2009-2014 dated 28.02.2013 - as the import has been affected prior to 28.02.2013, there is no restriction of import of the subject goods. Hence, no specific license is required for import of the impugned goods. Thus, for enhancement of value, the Chartered Accountant s Certificate cannot be relied upon unless and until there is no corroborative evidence. Therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation. No redemption fine can be imposed and no penalty on the appellant - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the requirement of a license for the import of Digital Multifunction Printers, the determination of the date of importation, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. Summary: License Requirement for Import: The appellant appealed against the order stating that the import of Digital Multifunction Printers required a license post the date of importation on 28.02.2013. The appellant imported old and used printers on 28.02.2013, which were examined and found to be second hand, leading to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that no license was required prior to 28.02.2013, citing a previous case. The Revenue opposed, citing a notification effective on 28.02.2013. The Tribunal determined the date of importation to be 13.02.2013, before the notification, and held that no license was needed. Date of Importation: The Tribunal referred to a previous case to establish that the date of importation is crucial in determining the applicability of licensing requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the date of importation in this case was 13.02.2013, prior to the notification requiring a license for import. Redemption Fine and Penalty: Based on the findings regarding the date of importation and the licensing requirements, the Tribunal held that no license was needed for the import of the goods in question. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, disallowing the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant.
|
