Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 555 - AT - CustomsImport of old & used photocopiers - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Enhancement of declared value at the time of assessment - Held that - Revenue has correctly pointed out that multifunctional machines have copying facility are classifiable under CTH 84433100. In view of the observations from the appellant s own case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as BE Office Automation Products Ltd Vs CCE Gurgaon 2013 (11) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT and the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that in this case redemptpion fine & penalty imposed are excessive & are respectively reduced to 10% & 5% of the value assessed by the department. - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on Chartered Engineer's report. 2. Classification of imported goods as Digital Multifunctional Copier Machines. 3. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed. Issue 1: Valuation of Imported Goods The appellant challenged the arbitrary enhancement of the assessable value of the imported photocopiers based on a Chartered Engineer's report. The appellant argued that the basis for enhancing the value was not justified. However, the Adjudicating authority accepted the enhanced assessable value and DGFT restriction, indicating the appellant's consent to the same. The Tribunal declined to entertain this issue at the appellate stage since it was not raised before the lower Adjudicating authority. Issue 2: Classification of Imported Goods The appellant claimed that the imported goods were Digital Multifunctional Copier Machines and not ordinary photocopiers, thus not requiring an import license. The Revenue contended that the appellant classified the goods under the wrong category in the bills of entry. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not raise the issue of valuation or licensing restrictions before the Adjudicating authority. Since the appellant did not challenge these issues earlier, the Tribunal did not entertain these fresh grounds at the appellate stage. Issue 3: Quantum of Redemption Fine and Penalty The appellant argued for leniency in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, citing previous cases where the fine and penalty were restricted to 10% and 5% of the assessed value. The Tribunal observed that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the value assessed by the department, respectively. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the redemption fine and penalty. In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of valuation, classification, and quantum of redemption fine and penalty concerning the imported Digital Multifunctional Copier Machines. The Tribunal upheld the enhanced assessable value based on the appellant's consent, declined to entertain new grounds not raised before the Adjudicating authority, and reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the assessed value, respectively, based on established legal principles and precedents.
|