Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Imported Printers for Foreign Trade Policy Violation

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of old and used digital multi-functional printers imported without a specified license, citing violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. The goods were valued higher than declared, considered restricted, and subject to redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal supported valuation by an Expert Chartered Engineer and reduced the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the goods' value, following precedent and concluding the appeal accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Import of old and used digital multi-functional printer without specified import license, enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty.

Import without License Issue:
The appellant imported old and used digital multi-functional printer from South Korea without a specified import license, violating the Foreign Trade Policy. The Customs authorities valued the goods higher than the declared value, and the original adjudicating authority considered the goods restricted for imports, requiring a license. The goods were ordered for confiscation and could be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal held that since the goods were second-hand and required an import license, they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Valuation Issue:
The valuation of the goods was done based on the opinion of an Expert Chartered Engineer, considering factors like the year of manufacture, present condition, and expected lifespan. The Tribunal noted that the valuation of second-hand goods is case-specific and upheld the use of the Chartered Engineer certificate for valuation. Referring to the case of Gajra Bewal, the Tribunal supported the valuation of second-hand machines through Chartered Engineer certification.

Confiscation and Redemption Issue:
The Tribunal found the goods liable for confiscation and could only be released upon payment of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the imposed redemption fine and penalty were arbitrary and excessive. Citing various case laws, the appellant sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. After reviewing the case laws, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% and the penalty to 5% of the approved value of the goods, concluding the appeal in these terms.

This comprehensive summary provides an in-depth analysis of the judgment, covering all the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.

---