Restricted second-hand photocopier imports and customs valuation re-determination upheld, with penalty reduced on proportionality grounds.

Second-hand photocopier machines imported after the operative restriction date were treated as restricted goods under the foreign trade policy framework, so import without a valid licence was impermissible. The declared transaction value was rejected because it was lower than contemporaneous import values and was not supported by reliable evidence; re-determination based on Chartered Engineer's report and NIDB data under the Customs Valuation Rules was upheld. On confiscation-related consequences, the redemption fine was maintained, while the penalty was reduced on proportionality considerations in light of the facts and past conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported old and used photocopier machines, brought into India after 19.10.2005, were restricted goods requiring a valid import licence; (ii) whether the declared value of the goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer's report and NIDB data under the customs valuation framework; (iii) whether the redemption fine and penalty required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the imported old and used photocopier machines, brought into India after 19.10.2005, were restricted goods requiring a valid import licence.

Analysis: The import restriction introduced by the 19.10.2005 notification, read with the policy amendment under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, brought second-hand photocopier machines within the restricted category. The expression was understood in common parlance and covered photocopier machines whose primary function was photocopying, including the machines imported in these appeals. Once the goods became restricted, import without licence was impermissible.

Conclusion: The goods were restricted goods and their import without licence was not lawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared value of the goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer's report and NIDB data under the customs valuation framework.

Analysis: The declared values were not accepted because they were lower than the values reflected in contemporaneous imports and were also not supported by acceptable evidence from the importers. The Chartered Engineer's assessment and the NIDB data furnished a proper basis for re-determination, and the valuation exercise under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was not successfully challenged. The importers failed to show any reliable basis for sustaining the declared prices.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required interference.

Analysis: The importers had repeated past conduct of importing similar goods without licence, and the adjudicating authority had imposed redemption fine and penalty having regard to the nature of the violations. The appellate reduction made by the lower authority was found to be unwarranted on the facts. At the same time, considering the guidance drawn from the Tribunal's earlier approach to proportionality, the penalty was scaled down from the adjudication level, while the redemption fine was maintained.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was sustained, and the penalty was modified by reducing it to the extent directed in the order.

Final Conclusion: The import restriction and valuation findings were affirmed, the redemption fine was maintained, and only the penalty was modified, resulting in partial relief on the quantum of penalty alone.

Ratio Decidendi: Second-hand photocopier machines imported after the operative restriction date are restricted goods requiring licence, and where declared value is unsupported and contradicted by contemporaneous evidence, customs may re-determine value and sustain confiscation with proportionate redemption fine and penalty.

---