Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in overlooking the CRO, 2012, which covers Multifunctional and Printers/Devices (MFDs) along with printers and plotters?

3. The Respondent filed Bills of Entry to import used Digital Multi- Function Printers / Devices [MFDs] of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments classifying them under Customs Tariff Heading 84433100. They were examined on first check appraisal in the presence of the Chartered Engineer to verify (a) residual life of the goods (b) nature of the accessories (c) the requirement of compliance of conditions imposed under Hazardous & Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (d) E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016 (e) Authorization of DGFT under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020; and (f) applicability of Bureau of Indian Standards as per the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. The Chartered Engineer submitted his report and also appraised the value of the goods. After perusal of the documents, the lower authority passed an order of adjudication dated 19.12.2019 inter alia holding as under:

".......
35......
(1) Electronics & Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order 2012 has gone beyond the Act and Rules in imposing a restriction from imports. Even these restrictions were confined only to printers and plotters. Multi-Functional Devices were not covered under this order. The letters and circulars of the Meity cannot take the place of law and therefore the goods were not prohibited for import.