Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multifunction printer in The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Digital Express on 3 September, 2020Matching Fragments
3. Briefly stated, the facts in CSTA.No.5/2020 are that the respondent in this appeal imported 104 units of used digital multifunctional printers/devices ("MFDs") of various brands with standard accessories and attachments of declared value of Rs.33,01,195/-. According to the Chartered Engineer, value of the said goods is Rs.41,23,213/-. The Department was of the opinion that the declared value did not conform to the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of convenience) and the value had to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Department was also of the opinion that the product MFDs imported by the respondent did not conform to the standards prescribed under Rule 13(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the H&OW Rules" for the sake of brevity). The contention of the Department was also that the imported goods was also not as per the standard prescribed by the Indian Quality Standards under the import policy and the compulsory registration order was not obtained from the Bureau of Indian Standards ("BIS", for short) nor was any exemption certificate produced. Show-cause notice was issued as to why the goods ought not to be seized and penalty imposed. The Original Authority passed an order in Original No.78/2018 dated 28/12/2018. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also dismissed. Hence, respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has passed the impugned order by setting aside the absolute confiscation and remanded the matter for determination of redemption fine and penalty. Consequently, by the common impugned order dated 20/12/2019, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with the aforesaid relief.
4. Briefly stated, the facts in CSTA.No.4/2020 are that the respondent in this appeal imported 104 units of used digital multifunctional printers/devices ("MFDs") of various brands with standard accessories and attachments of declared value of Rs.15,13,655/-. According to the Chartered Engineer, value of the said goods is Rs.18,53,945/-. The Department was of the opinion that the declared value did not conform to the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules and the value had to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Department was also of the opinion that the product MFDs imported by the respondent did not conform to the standards prescribed under Rule 13(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the H&OW Rules. The contention of the Department was also that the imported goods was also not as per the standard prescribed by the Indian Quality Standards under the import policy and the compulsory registration order was not obtained from the BIS nor was any exemption certificate produced. Show-cause notice was issued as to why the goods ought not to be seized and penalty imposed. The Original Authority passed an order in Original No.3/2014 dated 4/1/2019. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also dismissed. Hence, respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has passed the impugned order by setting aside the absolute confiscation and remanded the matter for determination of redemption fine and penalty. Consequently, by the common impugned order dated 20/12/2019, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with the aforesaid relief.