Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1109 - HC - CustomsConfiscation of imported goods - Old/Used Analogue Photocopiers and Old/Used Digital Multi functional (Print and Copying) Machines - restricted goods - appellant did not produce the license for import of the said machines - redetermination of value of the goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation [Determination of Price of Imported Goods] Rules, 2007 - appraisal of value of goods - whether the finding rendered by the Tribunal holding that what was imported by the appellant was a restricted item was correct? - whether the reasons assigned by the Tribunal to confirm the order of the adjudicating authority calls for any interference? - HELD THAT:- The appellant had imported 36 units of Old/Used Analogue Photocopiers without obtaining a license. Having accepted the stand taken by the Department, the appellant requested that his case may be adjudicated. All second hand goods except second hand capital goods are restricted for import. It is not in dispute that 201 machines which were imported by the appellant were second hand goods. Thus, going by the first limb of para 2.17, license is required. In the second para, the Policy allows import of second hand capital goods including refurbished/reconditioned spares without obtaining any license. There is a restriction for import of second hand Photocopier machines and other items mentioned therein. The appellant did not produce a Chartered Engineer's certificate when the goods were imported. Therefore, the goods were subjected to examination by Docks Officer in the presence of a Chartered Engineer and certified that the goods are 4 to 10 years old, they are used and not reconditioned and the value of the second hand goods was appraised as USD 69395 [C&F] - The photocopying machines do not have any single entry in Tariff and copying machines whether or not combined with printers and facsimile machines are classified elsewhere as also machines which perform two or more functions of printing, copying or facsimile transmission as in the case of the imported goods. Further the Tribunal noted that DGFT notification No.31/2005 dated 19.10.2005 uses the expression “photocopier machines” and therefore, there is no warrant to read the expression appearing in the DGFT notification as conforming to any one particular expression used in the Tariff as these expressions are not identical and no Tariff item is mentioned in the DGFT notification. The Tribunal rightly rejected the case of the appellant - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|