HC dismisses appeals on confiscation of multi-functional devices failing printer standards under Electronics IT Goods Order 2012

HC dismissed appeals involving confiscation of imported multi-functional devices that allegedly failed to meet printer/plotter standards under Electronics Information Technology Goods (Requirements of Compulsory Registration) Order 2012. The case involved disputes over declared values in Bill of Entry and revaluation by Chartered Engineer, along with redemption fine and penalty issues. Both parties confirmed goods were released upon payment of duty per Tribunal order. Following SC precedent in Union of India v. R.R. Marketing, HC dismissed appeals while keeping questions of law open for future adjudication.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in allowing redemption for home consumption despite non-compliance with the conditions of the Foreign Trade PolicyRs.
2. Whether the CESTAT's finding that the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, is beyond the Act and Rules is erroneousRs.
3. Whether the CESTAT overlooked the CRO, 2012, which covers Multifunctional and Printers/Devices (MFDs) along with printers and plottersRs.

Issue 1:
The Respondent imported used Digital Multi-Function Printers/Devices [MFDs] and faced adjudication where the declared value of the goods was rejected, and the goods were confiscated for contravention of import provisions. The lower authority imposed redemption fine, re-export conditions, and penalties on the importer.

Issue 2:
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) partly allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the importer. Similar orders were passed by the Appellate Authority in other appeals filed by the assessees.

Issue 3:
Challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority, the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal, which rejected the appeals based on previous findings. The Tribunal upheld the redemption for home consumption, valuation of goods, and penalties imposed on the importer.

Separate Judgment by Andhra Pradesh High Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed similar issues regarding detaining containers based on the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021. The High Court found that previous consignments were released after penalties were paid, questioning the withholding of later consignments.

Supreme Court Disposition:
The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, where it was found that the goods in question had already been released upon payment of penalties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, keeping the questions of law open for future adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed by the High Court following the Supreme Court's decision, with the questions of law left open for further proceedings. The goods were released upon payment of duty and other dues as per the Tribunal's order.

---