2023 (8) TMI 563 - AT - Customs

Levy of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of 128 units of used Multifunction machines - enhancement of value as per the Chartered Engineer s certificate - violation of import conditions - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that there have been number of orders issued by this Tribunal and various High Courts accepting the fact that the impugned MFDs are not liable for absolute confiscation. Considering lack of indigenous facility for manufacturing Multi Function Machines, lenient view is taken on such import and imported used MFD are released on payment of redemption fine of 10% penalty of 5%. From the decision in ACCORD DIGITECH VERSUS C. C-BANGALORE 2020 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT BANGALORE passed by this Tribunal, it is clearly evident that the used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine were released on payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value of the imported goods - This was also followed by this Bench in the case of SR ENTERPRISES AND DIGITAL EXPRESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2021 (9) TMI 1251 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the redemption fine and penalty was 10% and 5% respectively. Thus, in the interest of justice since 06 years have already been lapsed, the present appeal is partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine and penalty by 10% and 5% respectively of the enhanced value - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case include challenging an impugned order issued by the First Appellate Authority, remanding the matter for determining appropriate customs duties, redemption fine, and penalty, and the delay in releasing the goods due to various legal proceedings.

Impugned Order Challenge:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the impugned order issued by the First Appellate Authority, which partially allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for determining customs duties, redemption fine, and penalty. The Respondent also filed a cross objection against the impugned order.

Factual Background:
The case revolves around the import of 128 units of used Multifunction machines, where the value declared in the Bill of Entry was contested by the Adjudication Authority. The Adjudication Authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The First Appellate Authority later held that the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation and allowed redemption on payment of appropriate duties, fine, and penalty.

Legal Arguments:
The Revenue argued that the impugned order could not be implemented as it lacked specific quantification of fine and penalty. The Respondent cited various legal precedents and argued for the release of goods based on a percentage of the enhanced assessable value, highlighting the undue delay in the process.

Precedents and Tribunal Decisions:
Previous cases and Tribunal decisions were referenced to support the argument that similar goods were released on payment of redemption fine and penalty based on the enhanced value. The Tribunal had previously allowed redemption of goods on similar terms in cases involving used digital multifunction machines.

Judgment and Disposal:
After considering the arguments and precedents, the Member (Judicial) disposed of the appeal and cross objection by directing the Revenue to release the goods on payment of custom duty on the enhanced value, redemption fine of 10%, and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value. The Respondent was allowed to redeem the goods for home consumption based on these terms.