Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Appearance Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant 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: 22.08.2017 Final Order No. 41755 / 2017 Per Bench The appellants had imported old & used digital multifunctional printers, scanner and copiers and old & used analogue photocopier machines of various models at a declared value of USD 67325 (C&F) from Hong Kong. The learned counsel submits that the imports were after 19.10.2005, the same were restricted goods. The learned counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj, submitted that the appellant is not contesting the enhancement of value of USD 88105 CIF equivalent to Rs.43,82,374/- and that the contest is confined only to imposition of redemption fine and penalty. He submitted that the redemption fine and penalty imposed is Rs.13,15,000/- and Rs.4,40,000/- respectively.

2. The learned counsel submitted that the old and used digital multifunctional printers are not restricted goods, hence redemption fine and penalties imposed are without basis as the adjudicating authority has not considered the margin of profit or the comparable goods in order to ascertain the market value.

3. The learned AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. We find that the used digital multifunctional printers are not liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act as they are not restricted goods, hence not liable for confiscation and no redemption fine or penalty is imposable. As far as old and used photocopiers are concerned, these being restricted goods are liable for confiscation. As seen from the value enhanced as well as the redemption fine and penalty imposed, we are of the opinion that the redemption fine and penalty is high and requires interference.