TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technical Member Shri S. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s Vijay Traders, imported various models of old and used Photocopiers. The Customs authority revised the assessable value of the said goods to ₹ 10,89,909/- as per contemporary prices which was agreed by the importer, M/s Vijay Traders, who are the appellants. 1.1 The Customs department objected to subject imports, they being 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods in question were restricted in terms of Para 2.17 of the Policy. The appellants submit that in the light of proper interpretation of Para 1.5 of the Policy, the impugned order is illegal in holding that used photocopier as second hand goods and not second hand capital goods . The issue as to whether second hand photocopier is capital goods or not is no longer res integra. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, 2005 (184) ELT 135(T-LB) has finally 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 . T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Section 112 of the said Act was set aside . The impugned order is therefore untenable in law. 3. The Revenue is represented by learned A.R. Shri Pakshi Rajan. He reiterated the findings and reasonings given in the Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. All the facts of the case on record and the submissions of both the sides have been carefully examined and considered. 5. We find that the facts of the present case are similar to the case of M/s Office Devices Vs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
