Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rank Office Automation Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata(Port) on 1 December, 2023
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.1
Customs Appeal No.76961 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS(PORT)/AA/994-995/2017 dated
11.09.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.)
M/s. Rank Office Automation Private Limited
(14, Ansari Market, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.)
...Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
.....Respondent
(15/1, Strand Road, Custom House, Kolkata-700001.) APPEARANCE Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Chakraborty, Authorized Representative for the Revenue CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 77578/2023 DATE OF HEARING : 1 December 2023 DATE OF DECISION : 1 December 2023 Per : ASHOK JINDAL :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported old and used Digital Multi Function Printer and filed Bill of Entry on 02.04.2013 against invoice dated 29.01.2013 and Bill of Lading dated 13.02.2013. The goods were inspected and examined by the Chartered Engineer and vide his report dated 11.04.2013 certified that the goods to be used Xerox/Canon Printer cum Multi Munction Devices having residual life of at least six years and also provided his opinion on valuation. The revenue is of the view that in terms of Circular No.27/2011-Customs dated 04.07.2011 for import of the cited goods permission from 2 Customs Appeal No.76961 of 2017 Ministry of Environment & Forest is required and the appellant has not obtained the permission and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned Ministry, therefore, the goods were held liable for confiscation and the order was passed holding the goods are liable for confiscation and redemption fine was imposed, penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. Heard the parties, considered the submissions.
4. We find that as the Bill of Lading is in this case is 13.02.2013, which was issued prior to 28.02.2013 and this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Bhawani Enterprises reported in 2017 (353) ELT 234 (Tri.-Kolkata), has observed 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 appellants had declared the goods correctly in description/quantity/value and classified them under proper chapter heading of Customs Tariff. The value of the goods was enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate which was accepted by both the parties. We agree with Commissioner (Appeal)'s findings that
(i) mere enhancement of value on the basis of C.E. certificate cannot be a ground for treating declared value as mis-declared unless there is other corroborative evidence. (ii) except enhancement on the basis of C.E.'s Certificate, there is no other material on record to inform that declared value was mis-declared."3
Customs Appeal No.76961 of 2017
5. As in this case also, we hold that the Bill of Lading is prior to 28.02.2013 for import of the identical goods as in the case of Bhawani Enterprises (supra), wherein it has been held that there was no restriction on import of the subject goods, therefore, we hold that the appellant is not required to obtain any specific license for import of the impugned goods. We further hold that the enhancement of value on the basis of Chartered Engineer's certificate cannot be a ground for treating declared value as mis-declared unless there is other corroborative evidence.
6. In view of this, as the issue is no more res integra, therefore, we hold that the value declared by the appellant is correct and no license is required by the appellant for import of the said goods.
7. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) Sd/ (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/ (RAJEEV TANDON) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) sm