9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the goods were allowed to be imported under valid authorization which the appellant has failed to produce and it was also found that the appellant is in habit of import of the said goods. In past also, although the goods were restricted but the appellant has failed to produce valid authorization, therefore, the goods have become prohibited goods, in those circumstances, after re-determining the assessable value of the impugned goods as Rs. 17,35,647/-, the goods were held liable for confiscation and an option was given to the appellant for re-export of the same on payment of redemption fine of 50,000/- and penalties were also imposed under Section 112A (1) and Section 114 AA of Rs. 50,000/= each. Against the said order, the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be made under Clause 2.08 only in accordance with an authorisation/permission to be obtained under Clause 2.11. Photocopier machines/Digital multifunction Print and Copying Machines are restricted items importable against authorisation under Clause 2.31. Indisputably, the respondents did not possess the necessary authorisation for their import. The Customs authorities therefore, prima facie cannot be said to be unjustified in detaining the consignment. Merely because earlier on more than one occasion, similar consignments of the respondent or others may have been cleared by the Customs authorities at the Calcutta, Chennai or Cochin ports on payment of redemption fine, cannot be a justification simpliciter to demand parity of treatment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent was entitled to redemption of the consignment on payment of the market price at the reassessed value by the Customs authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. The Central Government had permitted the import of used MFDs with utility for at least five years keeping in mind that they were not being manufactured in the country. The Chartered Engineer commissioned by the Customs authorities had certified that the MFDs were capable of utility for the next 5 to 7 years without any major repairs. Considering that at import they had utility, the High Court rightly classified them as "other wastes" under Rule 3(1)(23) of the Waste Management Rules, which reads as follows :- "Other wastes means wastes spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory scheme of the Foreign Trade Act as discussed, we further find no error in the penultimate direction to the respondents for deposit of bond without sureties for 90% of the enhanced valuation of the goods leaving it to the DGFT to decide whether confiscation needs to be ordered or release be granted on redemption at the market value, in which event the respondents shall be entitled to set off. as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned goods are not prohibited goods but are restricted items for import. The Foreign Trade Act and the Section 125 of the Customs Act does not make any bar from redemption of such restricted goods imported without authorization on payment of duty on retail market value and there is distinction between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
