2023 (8) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Levy of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of 213 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 involved: Import of used Multifunction machines, absolute confiscation of goods, penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, remand by Commissioner (Appeals), market value determination, redemption fine, penalty reduction.

Summary:

1. Import and Confiscation:
The appellant imported 213 units of used Multifunction machines, declared value at Rs.34,77,805/-. A show cause notice was issued alleging violation of law, leading to absolute confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, allowing redemption of goods on payment of appropriate redemption fine while upholding the penalty.

2. Market Value and Penalty:
Appellant argued goods are liable for confiscation based on Supreme Court judgment. Requested consideration of redemption fine and penalty based on Tribunal decisions. Highlighted undue delay in releasing goods and sought waiver of detention charges.

3. Tribunal's Consideration:
Tribunal reviewed previous cases and noted goods not liable for absolute confiscation. Reduced redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of enhanced value based on past judgments and in the interest of justice due to the lapse of 06 years.

4. Conclusion:
The present appeal was partially allowed, reducing redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% respectively of the enhanced value. Appellant permitted to redeem goods for home consumption under the revised terms.