Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The appellants M/s Vishwakna Enterprises (Appeal No.C/2854/2012) filed Bill of Entry No.4482956 dated 27-08-2011 for clearance of 242 nos. of used Cannon make multifunctional copier cum printers. M/s Katka Digital Printers (Appeal No.C/1341/2011) filed Bill of Entry No.2529320 dated 04-01-2011 for clearance of used cannon MFD copiers. Similarly Sri Sai Graphics filed Bill of Entry No.4247842 dated 02-08-2011 for clearance of 113 nos. of second hand Cannon MFD(Digital Multifunctional devices)

5. It is seen that prior to 05-06-2012, the restriction was only with regard to photocopiers. After 05-06-2012, Digital multifunctional print and copying machines were also included in the restricted category. Thus prior to 05-06-2012 import of used photocopiers without a license was not permissible. The import of goods in all the three appeals is prior to 05-06-2012 as reflected from the respective bills of Entry.

6. It is the case of the department that the goods imported are second hand multifunction copier machines which are nothing but photocopiers with additional devices/functions. Therefore, used photocopiers being restricted, the import of impugned goods without license is contravention of condition 2.17 of FTP read with Section 13 & 11 of Foreign (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The learned AR Sri Venkatesan submitted that the goods though described as multifunctional copier cum printers are per se photocopiers. Further, that after amendment, used digital multifunctional print and copying machines are also restricted. The import of such goods without a license tantamount to violation of the condition laid in para 2.17 of FTP. That therefore the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods and imposed penalty.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that prior to 05-06-2012, the restriction was applicable only to photocopiers. The goods imported by appellants are not mere/standalone photocopiers. They are multifunctional digital photocopying machines. Some models also function as printer, scanner, Xerox etc. with memory function in them. He drew attention to the classification of goods shown in the Bills of entry and contended that the goods imported by appellant are classified under CTH 84433100 while the classification of photocopiers is CTH 84433930. He relied upon the following judgments and pleaded that the confiscation is unjustified.

i) Shivam Internationals CC Cochin [2012(286) ELT 545(Tri-Bombay)]

ii) Sai Graphics Systems Vs CC (Seaport-import) Chennai [2013(289) ELT 423(Mad)]

iii) CCE, Delhi Vs Best Mega International [2013(293) ELT 243(Tri-Del)]

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the appeal papers. The classification of goods shown in the Bill of Entry is CTH 84433100 which is that of MFD machines. So also the description of goods shown in Bill of Entry is not photocopiers but it is stated as multifunctional Digital machines, copier, scanner (printer). The department had taken the assistance of a Chartered Engineer for examination of the goods and assessment of its value. Thereby the value declared by the appellants was rejected and order was passed enhancing the value basing upon the report/valuation of chartered Engineer. It is not stated anywhere by the expert/chartered engineer that the goods are mere photocopiers classifiable under CTH 84433930 or that the description or classification shown in the Bills of Entry are wrong. The Chartered Engineer has not reported that the goods do not conform to the description given in Bill of Entry. The department has assumed after enhancement of value that the goods are merely photocopiers and are restricted goods. Further the argument of the AR that MFD copiers are also included in restricted category is not acceptable as the amendment is after the import of goods. I find from records placed and evidence adduced that the goods are not photocopier machines as mentioned in para 2.17 of FTP.