Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ruchi International vs Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin on 3 July, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/8/2008 and C/262/2008
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.1/2008 dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and Order-in-Original No. 7596/2008 dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai)
M/s. Ruchi International
M/s. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Commissioner of customs, Chennai Respondents
Appearance Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 03.07.2017 Final Order Nos. 41112-41113 / 2017 Per Bench The issues involved in both the appeals being similar were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellants had imported old and used digital multifunction printing and copying machines with standard accessories. After inspection, the value declared was enhanced and the department also entertained a view that the said goods are liable for confiscation being restricted items in terms of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy. In Appeal No.C/8/2008, the declared value of Rs.12,79,185/- was enhanced to Rs.23,16,281/- and redemption fine of Rs.6,95,000/- was imposed with equal penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In Appeal No. C/262/2008, the declared value of USD 48,550 was enhanced to USD 60,245 and redemption fine of Rs.10.00 lakhs was imposed along with penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not contesting the enhancement of value and the contest is confined only to the imposition of redemption fine and penalties imposed. He submitted that the goods have been confiscated on the pretext that these are restricted goods in terms of Foreign Trade Policy. That though these are second-hand goods, during the relevant period of import (2007), the import of multi-function printing and copying machines were not restricted and no license was required for their import. That therefore, the redemption fine and penalties imposed on this count is unjustified.
4. Against this, the learned AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that since the appellants are not contesting the enhancement of value, it is clear that there is mis-declaration of the value of the goods. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalties on this count are sustainable.
5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Since the appellants have given up their contest on the enhancement of the value of the goods, we confine our discussion only with regard to the redemption fine and penalties imposed. The goods during the time were not restricted as per provisions of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy being not per se photocopiers but multifunctional digital printing photocopiers. The restriction in regard to multifunctional digital copiers came into existence in the year 2012 only. However, since the value has been enhanced and the appellants are not contesting the enhancement of value, we are of the considered view that the redemption fine and penalties cannot be set aside in toto. In the circumstances, we consider that redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and personal penalty of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) would meet the ends of justice in the case of Appeal No.C/8/2008. Similarly, in the case of Appeal No. C/262/2008, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and personal penalty is reduced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).
6. The appeals are thus partly allowed in the above terms with consequential benefit if any, without disturbing the enhancement of value.
(Operative portion of the order was
pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex
4