Import restrictions and transaction value for used digital multifunction machines require clear legal basis and supporting evidence.

Old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines imported before 05.06.2012 were treated as distinct from restricted photocopier machines under the Foreign Trade Policy, so no import licence was required for that earlier period and confiscation under the Customs Act was not justified. The declared transaction value also could not be rejected where the Department relied only on a Chartered Engineer's estimate and a marginal difference in valuation, without independent evidence of additional consideration or suppression. The analysis therefore affirms that later amendments cannot be applied retrospectively to restrict earlier imports, and that undervaluation must be supported by cogent evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines imported prior to 05.06.2012 were restricted for import and required an import licence. (ii) Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and a small difference in valuation.

Issue (i): Whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines imported prior to 05.06.2012 were restricted for import and required an import licence.

Analysis: The goods were imported as old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines. During the relevant period, para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy referred to old and used photocopier machines as restricted items, while Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines were added only later with effect from 05.06.2012. The materials relied upon showed that the two categories were treated separately, and the goods were also certified as not being e-waste. The prior judicial view supported the position that such goods were freely importable before the amendment.

Conclusion: The goods were not restricted for import during the relevant period and no import licence was required. The confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was correctly set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and a small difference in valuation.

Analysis: The declared transaction value was only marginally lower than the value worked out by the Department. No independent evidence was produced to show that the declared value was incorrect or that any additional consideration had been paid over and above the declared price. A Chartered Engineer's estimate by itself was not enough to displace the declared transaction value in the absence of supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be rejected, and the allegation of misdeclaration of value failed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed on both restricted-import and valuation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later amendment specifically brings a product into the restricted list, the product is not to be treated as restricted for the earlier period absent clear wording to that effect; similarly, declared import value cannot be displaced without cogent evidence of undervaluation.

---