9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HOUSE VERSUS M/S. CITY OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND OTHERS [ 2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] clearly holding that the restriction on import of second hand multi functional digital copiers come into force only from 28.02.2013 and not before - Therefore, the import of the goods in question was therefore not restricted and confiscation under section 111(d) needs to be set aside. Enhancement of value - HELD THAT:- The enhancement was marginal from US $23,855/- to US $30,030/-. The importer could have challenged this enhancement arguing that there is no evidence that they have mis-declared the value and hence the declared value must be accepted. However, they have chosen not to do so and paid the customs duty on the enhanced value. Mere acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs to a Chartered Engineer who assessed the value of consignment at US $30,030/- (C F). The importer/appellant accepted the enhanced value of the goods and agreed to pay the duty accordingly. 3. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam in his Orderin- Original No. 31/2009 dated 08.12.2009 has observed that in terms of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2009-2014), used and second hand multi functional digital copying machines can be imported only under a valid import license. The appellant had not produced, at any stage, an import license for the import of the same. He also observed that the appellant had failed to produce the Chartered Engineer s Certificate certifying the value of the goods which were impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value by the Customs and had indeed paid the Customs duty accordingly. However, they are aggrieved by the confiscation of the goods on both the grounds i.e., import of the goods without a license/authorisation and misdeclaration of the goods. They are also aggrieved by the imposition of penalty consequent upon the confiscation of the goods. He would submit that what they had imported were multi functional digital copiers which can be used as copiers and also as printers. In terms of section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 the DGFT is authorized to frame a Foreign Trade Policy and amend it from time to time. On 19th October, 2005 the DGFT has issued Notification No.31 (RE-2005)/2004-2009 dt.19.10.2005 amending P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal digital copiers. Therefore, during the period 19.10.2005 to 28.02.2013 import of second hand multi functional digital copiers was not restricted at all. 9. He would submit that the department s argument is that multi functional digital copiers are also a form of photo copier machines and therefore, the import restrictions under notification No.31 (RE-2012)/2009-14 apply during the relevant period. Such an interpretation is not correct since multi functional digital copiers were specially restricted w.e.f. 28.02.2013. He relies on the case law of City Office Equipment [2014 (302) ELT 212 (Mad.)] in which the Hon ble High Court of Madras specifically dealt with this issue. Para 24 of which reads as follows: 24. The Foreign Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clear provision, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the case of the appellants to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. We have already held that there is no conflict between the policy and the procedure laid down. Read in the context of the choice laid down for compliance by an importer as spoken to in Para 2.17 of the policy, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Director General of Foreign Trade. 10. He would submit that the binding ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Madras applies to this case and has been followed in several decisions including by this bench. Therefore, the goods were correctly imported by them without a license during the relevant period. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes by DGFT s Notification No. 31 (RE-2005)/2004-2009 dated 19.10.2005 also automatically extends to multi functional digital copiers as asserted by the department? (3) Consequently, whether the imported goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962? (4) Whether the goods were liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of value under section 111(m) only because the importer did not challenge the enhanced value by the Customs department, in the absence of any evidence that the value was indeed mis-declared by the importer? (5) Whether the imposition of fine is correct? (6) Whether the imposition of penalty is correct? 14. As far as the first two questions are concerned, evidently, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
