2017 (10) TMI 412 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Reduces Redemption Fine for Unlicensed Photocopier Imports under Customs Act

M/s. Rasi Offset Printers Versus CC (Seaport-Import), Chennai

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the import of old/used photocopiers without a valid license under the Customs Act. The redemption fine ... Import of restricted item - Old/Used photocopiers - Department took the view that the impugned goods are restricted for import and required valid license for import, which was not produced by the importer - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House Versus M/s. City Office Equipment and others [2013 (4) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that there was no restriction for import of used photocopier machines during the relevant period - the items are not restricted items - the redemption fine reduced to ₹ 2,33,000/- - penalty upheld - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:Import of old/used photocopiers without a valid license, confiscation of goods under Customs Act, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.Analysis:The appeal in question pertains to the import of 77 old/used photocopiers at a declared value of GBP 12,370 without a valid license for import, leading to the confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department contended that the goods required a valid license for import, which the importer failed to produce. Consequently, the values of the goods were enhanced to GBP 18,975. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 4,00,000 under Section 125 and a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 under Section 112. The appellant conceded the enhancement in value to &8377; 15,59,745 but challenged the redemption fine and penalty.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the value enhancement but focused the challenge on the redemption fine and penalty. The counsel cited a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to argue that there was no restriction on the import of used photocopier machines during the relevant period. The Tribunal concurred that the items were not restricted but noted a mis-description of the goods due to the enhanced declared value. Consequently, the Tribunal held that a redemption fine of &8377; 2,33,000 and the penalty imposed would be appropriate, considering the circumstances. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine to &8377; 2,33,000 while upholding the penalty and the enhanced value.In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine without disturbing the penalty imposed, based on the mis-description of the goods and the absence of import restrictions for used photocopiers during the relevant period.