2005 (7) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri R.C. Sankhala, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - A common issue is involved in all these appeals. Therefore, they are being taken up together. 2. In these cases, the appellants made import of second-hand photocopier machines. The Show-cause Notices were issued for enhancing the value of the goods imported by the appellants as well as for confiscati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that second-hand photocopier machines are not capital goods but are consumer goods and the second-hand capital goods are importable without any restriction. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the confiscation of the imported goods are on account of misdeclaration of value as well as on account of that these are restricted goods and imported without any valid licence. As the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nch that as the goods are consumer goods and not capital goods and therefore, they are not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The impugned order whereby the goods are confiscated on this ground is set aside and the appeals are allowed as indicated above. The appellants are also entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law. (Dictated & pronounced in open Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X