9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported old and used Digital Multifunction Printers and filed bill of entry on 28.02.2013. The goods were examined in the presence of Customs Officials, Chartered Engineer and representative of the appellant and found to be old and used having residual life of more than six years and the said machines were found to be minor reconditioning and values were assessed on the enhanced value as compared to declared value. The said value was arrived by Chartered Engineer after inspection and production of market value recommendations based on several aspects like useful life of machines/Make & Model/technology/country of origin/physical condition/comparison with similar goods imported in past/interne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were handed over to shippers on 13.02.2013, therefore, the date of importation is 13.02.2013. Therefore, they are not required to obtain license. 6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. In this case, the issue has been raised by the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the date of importation is 28.02.2013 whereas the ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that it should be 13.02.2013. The said issue has been answered by the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vide Final Order No.20078/2022 dated 03.03.2022 wherein it has been held that the date is when the goods left the last Port in the country from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), wherein the Tribunal has held as under : "3. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the Department and on perusal of the case record, we find, that on the licensing aspect, the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Writ Petition Nos. 890 to 894, 949 to 961 and 1170 to 1188 of 2012, dated 14-3-2013 [2014 (302) E.L.T. 212 (Mad.)] wherein it was held that upto 28-2-2013, there was no restriction on import of subject goods. Enquiring from the office of the DGFT, it was informed that in consultation with Law Ministry, they had decided not to file SLP against the said judgment of the Madras High Court. As for the question of confiscation of the goods for mis-declaration of value, we find that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
