Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2011 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 1064 - AT - CustomsEnhancement of Redemption fine and penalty - import of restricted goods without valid import licence repeatedly - Digital Multifunctional print and copier machines - Held that: - On careful reading of the explanatory notes under the HSN, we find that the photocopiers are specifically arranged under the head of copying machines and the said head does not include the machines which are capable to perform two or more functions of printing copying or facsimile, etc. There is a clear cut identification and separate head for combination of printers, copying machines or facsimile machines in the HSN explanatory notes. In view of this, it is very clear that photocopier machines are understood as copying machines, while the imported goods fall separately under the category of combinations of printers, copying machines of facsimile machines. It is not in dispute in this case that the imported goods are combination of printers, copying machines and/or facsimile machines. Hence, the “digital multifunction print & copier machines” cannot be termed as photocopiers to attract the bar of Para 2.17 of the FTP. As the adjudicating authority has found that the machines in question are capable of additional functions, such as printing, etc., when connected to a computer, although confiscation and penalty is to be sustained in the absence of any appeal by the importers against confiscation and penalty, no justification exists for enhancement in the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty - Further, there is no finding that the importers had made any payment over and above the invoice value and the value arrived at by the Chartered Engineer is only an estimated value and in his report in the case of imports made by M/s. Digitech Systems, M/s. S.S. Enterprises, M/s. Indicon Copier Services, it is stated that the subject goods are required to be modified/reconditioned for further use. He also stated that the estimated margin of profit varies between 20-25%, that the price of the second-hand goods varies depending upon the market conditions, demand, availability of spares, etc. All these are conditional factors to be kept in view while fixing quantum of fine and penalty and would justify reduction as done by the lower appellate authority. Also, respondents are first time importers and not repeated offenders so as to justify the enhancement in fine and penalty. Eenhancement in the quantum of fine and penalty not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|