Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multifunction printer in Kolkata(Port) vs Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises on 12 January, 2024Matching Fragments
APPERANCE :
Shri Tariq Sulaiman, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.R.MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR.RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.75070/2024 DATE OF HEARING : 12 .01.2024 DATE OF DECISION : 12 .01.2024 Per R.Muralidhar :
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein it has been held that the import of Digital Multifunction Printers are restricted items and license is required for imports made from 19.10.2012 to 22.01.2013.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported old and used Digital Multifunction Printers and filed bills of entry dated 19.10.2012, 28.09.2012, 26.12.2012, 09.11.2012, 04.01.2013, 31.12.2012, 04.01.2013, 18.01.2013, 22.01.2013. 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 Customs Appeal No.75212 of 2014 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/internet information/reconditioning etc.. It was held that the said consignment being second hand was restricted item in terms of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009 - 2014 and Para 2.33 & 2.33A of HBP and could be imported against valid license. Therefore, the goods in question are restricted items and import of the same was disallowed and it was held that being restricted items and has not been produced any license, the goods are liable to hold confiscation. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty were imposed on enhanced value on the respondent. Against the said order, the Revenue is before us.