Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multifunction printer in M/S. Creative Force vs Commissioner Of Customs, Imports, ... on 3 November, 2017Matching Fragments
Appearance Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 03.11.2017 Final Order No. 42598 / 2017 Per Bench The appellant had imported old & used digital multifunctional printers and copying machines. The value of the goods was enhanced to Rs.15,19,275/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The lower authority held that these are restricted items and confiscated the goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for policy violation and mis-declaration. However, he allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of fine and imposed penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order to the extent of reducing the imposition of fine and penalty. Hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel Shri N. Viswanathan submitted that the appellant is not contesting the enhancement of value and that the contest is confined only to imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the ground 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 B. Balamurugan 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.