2017 (8) TMI 430 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns fines for digital machines, upholds penalties for analog copiers.

M/s Office Devices, M/s. Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation, M/s. Shivam International And M/s. Maa Tara Enterprises Versus CC, Cochin

The Tribunal set aside redemption fines and penalties imposed on appellants for Digital Multifunction Print & Copier Machines, citing previous upheld ... Classification of imported goods - old & used Digital Multifunctional Print & Copier Machines with accessories and attachments - release of goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Shivam International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2013 (3) TMI 408 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal disposed of a batch of the appeals by holding that the impugned orders to the extent of confiscation and consequent penalties challenged in respect of 'old & used digital multifunctional print and copier machines' are incorrect and liable to be set aside - the imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants is not sustainable in law, for the used Digital Multifunction Machines imported by the appellants. Redemption fine in case of imported ‘analog photocopiers’ - Held that: - With regard to this item, no finding has been given in favour of the appellants. Therefore, with regard to 'analogue photocopiers' the concerned appellants are liable to pay redemption fine and penalty. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeals against Order-in-Appeals passed by Commissioner of Customs upheld by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.Analysis:The appeals involved a common issue where different appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The appeals were related to the classification of imported goods, specifically old and used Digital Multifunctional Print & Copier Machines. The appellants imported machines capable of performing multiple functions like scanning, printing, faxing, and emailing. The dispute arose regarding the classification of these machines under the Customs Tariff. The appellants argued that these multifunction machines should not be classified as photocopier machines due to their additional functionalities beyond mere photocopying.The appellants' contention was supported by the findings of a Chartered Engineer, confirming the multifunction capabilities of the imported machines. The appellants requested the release of goods without adjudication due to urgent need, but the Additional Commissioner imposed exorbitant redemption fine and penalty. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala allowed the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee and bond. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original with modifications, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.The appellants argued that the impugned orders were erroneous and contrary to law, citing judgments by higher judicial fora. They highlighted that multifunctional digital machines were previously classified differently from traditional photocopiers. Reference was made to a previous case decided by the Tribunal, which set aside penalties on similar machines.On the other hand, the Revenue contended that there was no distinction between Digital Multifunction Print and Copier Machines and traditional photocopiers. They cited cases where different views were taken by the Tribunal benches regarding the classification of similar machines.After considering the submissions and case laws presented by both parties, the Judicial Member of the Tribunal analyzed the issue. The Judicial Member noted that the decision in a previous case involving identical issues was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the imposition of redemption fines and penalties on the appellants concerning the Digital Multifunction Machines was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the setting aside of such penalties.However, in appeals involving 'analog photocopiers,' no findings were in favor of the appellants. The appellants were directed to pay specified redemption fines and penalties within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal disposed of all appeals accordingly, providing a detailed analysis and resolution for each issue raised.The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18/7/2017 by the Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.