9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such reliance made on the Notification will not help the respondents in any manner to advance their case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20692/2014-SM - 21027/2017 - Dated:- 5-7-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Smt Rukmani Menon, Advocate - For the Appellant Dr. Harish J. Deputy Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant M/s. Best Xerox had filed a Bill of Entry No.260547/31.12.2009 through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the appellant and hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant imported 211 Nos. of old and used digital multifunctional print and copier machines and on arrival of the goods at Cochin Port, the appellant filed a Bill of Entry No.260547 dated 31.12.2009 in the Custom House but the Department seized the goods alleging that the goods were photocopier and hence restricted for import in terms of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy and require a license. The examination of the goods were also carried out by the respondent to assess the market value of the goods and also to find out whether they were e-waste and also got the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports were affected in 2009 whereas the restriction came in June 2012 and therefore the appellants are not required to get a license and the import was allowed at the time when it was affected. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the following decisions: a) 2012 (286) E.L.T. 545 (Tri. -Bang.) Shivam International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin b) 2013 (293) 243 (Tri. -Del.) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Best Mega International c) 2013 (289) E.L.T. 423 (Mad) Sai Graphic Systems Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Seaport-Import), Chennai 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P. 21732 of 2001 etc. batch writ petitions dated 27.2.2012 would squarely cover the present batch of writ petitions. The above judgment was also followed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 2401 of 2012 etc. batch case by order dated 9.4.2012, wherein, the learned Judge ordered for release of goods. In the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in similar issues, this Court finds it appropriate to follow the same line of reasoning in these writ petitions also. 6. In view of the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
