Review jurisdiction and free importability of used photocopiers can defeat confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under customs law.

Review is maintainable where the earlier decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used as a disguised appeal or for re-appreciation of concluded matters. On the customs issue, used photocopier machines were treated as freely importable without a licence under the relevant foreign trade policy. Once that premise failed, the statutory basis for confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act disappeared, because the goods were not restricted imports. The earlier orders were therefore treated as resting on an erroneous foundation, and the relief granted to the importer stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review jurisdiction could be invoked on the ground of a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Whether used photocopiers were freely importable and, consequently, whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the review jurisdiction could be invoked on the ground of a manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: Review is maintainable where there is discovery of new material, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. A review cannot be used as a disguised appeal or to re-appreciate matters already concluded. The earlier dismissal had proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the controversy was confined to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, while the core issue had not been examined.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the earlier dismissal suffered from an apparent error.

Issue (ii): Whether used photocopiers were freely importable and, consequently, whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act were sustainable.

Analysis: The legal position, as affirmed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, was that used photocopier machines were freely importable and did not require a licence under the relevant foreign trade policy. The confiscation and consequential penalty were founded on the assumption that the goods were restricted and importable only against a licence. Once that assumption failed, the statutory basis for action under Section 111(d), Section 112(a) and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 disappeared. The earlier orders had therefore proceeded on an erroneous foundation and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: Used photocopiers were freely importable and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed, the earlier appellate dismissal was set aside, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) restoring relief to the assessee stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory foundation for confiscation and consequential redemption fine and penalty is absent because the goods are freely importable, those consequences cannot be sustained, and a review lies where the earlier decision overlooked the core issue and thereby committed an apparent error resulting in injustice.

---