9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that: - The restriction imposed is the case of MMFD is only from 05/06/2012 onwards as seen from para 2.17 of the FTP. The appellant had imported the goods prior to 05/06/2012. Further the classification description as well as the certificate of the Chartered Engineer shows that the imported goods are not per se photocopiers. Therefore the confiscation of the goods on the ground that they are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as e-waste which were prohibited for import under Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and also they were restricted for import under para 2.17 of the FTP. According to appellant, the goods which are photocopiers falling under CTH 84433930 which attract nil rate of duty are only restricted under FTP and not MFD machines that are classified under CTH 84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be added is not entirely new and is fully based upon the facts and evidences already on record, I am of the view that this additional ground can be accepted. 4, It is not disputed that the imported goods were described as multi function copiers (MFD) and also classified under CTH 84433100. Further the Chartered Engineer had also certified the goods to be multi function copiers. The department ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and consequent imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not sustainable. The impugned orders are modified to the extent of setting aside the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs, if any. The miscellaneous application is disposed accordingly. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
