9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without submission of valid import licence, citing Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, where under all second hand goods except capital goods are restricted for import. Customs state that it was clarified by the DGFT wide Circular No. 19 dated 11.11.2003 that second hand photocopier machines are governed by Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, which restricts import of second hand goods without licence. In other words, import licence is required to be submitted for valid import of second hand photocopiers. 1.2. The Customs department (Joint Commissioner) ordered confiscation of these goods (used photocopiers) under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but allowed redemption on payment of fine (RF) of Rs. 3,00,000/- and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly concluded the issue. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that second hand photocopiers are 'capital goods' within the meaning of Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy and are freely importable under Para 2.17 of the FTP and are not 'consumer goods'. The amended Para 2.17 post 19.10.2005 is inapplicable in the light of transitional provisions as provided in para 1.5 of the policy. The impugned order is therefore untenable in law. * The appellants submit that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Atul Commodities supra has affirmed the following decisions of the other Benches of the Tribunal, which has held that second hand photocopiers are 'capital gods' and are permissible for import without any licence under the EXIM Policy. (a) BE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (Customs Appeal No. 320/2007) decided by this Bench of the CESTAT on 22.3.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2009 (235) E.L.T. 385 (S.C)] has been cited to hold that the subject goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5.1 Considering the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Office Devices (supra) and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the facts are similar to the present case, there can only be one conclusion that the confiscation ordered by the Customs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
