TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OMS (GR. 5) CHENNAI II ORS. [ 2021 (8) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT] , while staying confiscation of the goods in view of the fact that the Notification dated 01.04.2020 was the subject matter of controversy before the Apex Court, had allowed the provisional release of the goods involved. This Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S S.P ASSOCIATES, ARIHANT ENTERPRISES, EXCEL COPIERS, CITY OFFICE EQUIPMENTS, PHOTOFAX SYSTEMS, SKYLARK OFFICE MACHINES, STAR COPIERS, SRK OVERSEAS, RANK OFFICE AUTOMATION, PRIUS TECHNOLOGIES, GENUINE COPIER SYSTEMS, AMAR ENTERPRISES, ATUL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD., DELHI PHOTOCOPIERS, KUTTY IMPEX, PHOTO FAX SYSTEM, GEE KAY COMPUTERS AND BEST MEGA INTERNATIONAL) [ 2021 (9) TMI 183 - CESTAT CHENNAI] while conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kumar, Authorized Representative. For the Respondent : Shri S. Sankaranarayanan, Advocate. Order : This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus. II No. 184/2022 dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, whereby the First Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee by also ordering provisional release of the impugned goods. 2. Heard Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri S. Sankaranarayanan, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned Order-in-Appeal and which are undisputed, inter alia, are that the respondent viz. M/s. Kutty Im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared the value of the imported used MFDs in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and consequently ordered as under:- (i) Declared value of Rs.79,88,782/- (CIF) (Rupees Seventy Nine Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Two only) in respect of the goods imported by M/s. Kutty Impex, Chennai vide Bill-of-Entry No. 4584446 dated 21.08.2019 was rejected in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the value as Rs.95,83,631/- (CIF) (Rupees Ninety Five lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty One only) under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. (ii) C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue before this forum. 6. In the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority has only followed the order of this Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. M/s. S.P. Associates [Customs Appeal No. 40098 of 2021] ors. in Final Order Nos. 41931-41971 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021 and also the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers v. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II in Special Leave Petition No. 7565 of 2021 ors. dated 11.08.2021 to order for provisional release of the goods. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers (supra) as well as the order of this Bench of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statues must be strictly interpreted. Therefore, a prohibition / restriction cannot be imposed and goods confiscated based on letters / circulars of MeitY. If there is no explicit prohibition / restriction, nothing can be read into the entry in CRO 2012 so as to enlarge the scope of prohibition. Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) under which the goods were confiscated by the lower authorities are reproduced below: SECTION 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: - (a) ... (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1987. Therefore, confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) on this ground is not sustainable and needs to be set aside which we do so. (Emphasis added by me for clarity) 8.3 Further, this Bench has also held that the valuation which was not disputed by either of the parties did not call for any interference. With regard to the goods in question being hazardous in nature within the meaning of the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, the Bench has observed that the goods in question were useful goods with residual life and therefore, cannot be called as hazardous waste . The Bench has inter alia observed that: 35. We have already discussed above that goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
