Pre-restriction imports and unsupported valuation enhancement cannot justify confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty.

Imports of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers made before 28.02.2013 were treated as freely importable, so no licence was required for the relevant period. Enhancement of value based only on a Chartered Engineer's certificate, without corroborative evidence, was held insufficient to establish misdeclaration. On that basis, confiscation could not be sustained, and the consequential redemption fine and penalty were also unsustainable. The note reflects the settled position that the pre-restriction period remained outside the later DGFT licensing requirement, and that valuation enhancement alone does not justify penal consequences absent supporting material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers made prior to 28.02.2013 required a licence and was liable to be treated as restricted import; and (ii) whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained on the basis of enhancement of value supported only by a Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers made prior to 28.02.2013 required a licence and was liable to be treated as restricted import.

Analysis: The imports were made between 19.10.2012 and 22.01.2013, i.e. before the DGFT notification dated 28.02.2013. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision holding that, for the relevant period, import of the subject goods was not restricted and no specific licence was required. The appeal was decided on the basis that the legal position for the pre-28.02.2013 period had already been settled.

Conclusion: The import was not a restricted import for the relevant period and no licence was required.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained on the basis of enhancement of value supported only by a Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been correctly described and classified, and the enhancement in value rested on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The Tribunal held that such enhancement, without corroborative evidence, could not by itself establish misdeclaration. In the absence of other supporting material, confiscation was not justified and the consequential levy of redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the goods imported before 28.02.2013 were held to be freely importable without licence, and the consequential confiscation and penalties based only on enhanced valuation were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For imports made before the relevant DGFT restriction took effect, no licence is required for the subject goods, and enhancement of value based solely on a Chartered Engineer's certificate, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain confiscation and consequential penalties.

---