9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri N. Viswanathan, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned Order-in-Appeal and which are undisputed, inter alia, are that the respondent viz. M/s. Genuine Copier Systems filed Bill-of-Entry No. 3001696 dated 26.04.2019 for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments and classifying the goods under CTH 84433100; that the Revenue having noticed that the goods were second hand in nature, adhering to the RMS/CCR instructions mentioned in the EDI system and as per the prevailing practice, the cargo covered under the above said Bill- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the value as Rs.23,37,234/- (CIF) (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four only) under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. (ii) Confiscation of 117 units of goods declared as 'Old & Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines with Standard Accessories' covered under Bill-of-Entry No. 3001696 dated 26.04.2019 under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the provisions of imports, as discussed. (iii) Imposed redemption fine of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand only) on the importer in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & ors. dated 11.08.2021 to order for provisional release of the goods. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers (supra) as well as the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.P. Associates (supra). 8. The ratio of the above case has been followed by me in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II v. M/s. Kutty Impex in Customs Appeal No. 40390 of 2022 [CESTAT, Chennai], wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, I am of the view that the same is required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
