Redemption allowed for multifunctional devices despite non-compliance with Foreign Trade Policy para 2.31 conditions

The HC dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a CESTAT order that allowed redemption for home consumption despite non-compliance with Foreign Trade Policy para 2.31 conditions. The case involved multifunctional devices and printers covered under CRO 2012, formulated under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act. Both parties confirmed goods were already released upon payment of duty and dues per the Tribunal's order. The HC kept substantial questions of law open for adjudication in appropriate future proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether redemption for home consumption was rightly allowed despite non-satisfaction of conditions of para 2.31 of the Foreign Trade PolicyRs.
2. Whether the 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 was correct in overlooking the CRO, 2012, which covers Multifunctional and Printers/ Devices (MFDs) along with printers and plottersRs.

Issue 1: Redemption for home consumption
The appellant submitted Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods, which were found liable for confiscation for contravening various regulations. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalty. A writ petition was filed seeking clearance upon payment of duties, and after adjudication, the goods were valued, confiscated, and penalties imposed. The appeal against this order was partly allowed, and further appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed it. The present appeal challenges this decision.

Issue 2: Electronics and IT Goods Order, 2012
The judgment refers to a previous case where goods were released after penalty payment, indicating inconsistency in Customs actions. The Andhra Pradesh High Court found no reason to withhold later consignments when previous ones were cleared after penalty payment. The Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions and Appeals, noting that the goods in question were already released on payment of penalty. Both counsels confirmed that goods were released upon payment of duty and other dues as per the Tribunal's order.

Issue 3: Overlooking CRO, 2012
The judgment cites a case where goods were released after penalty payment, similar to the present case. Both counsels confirmed that goods were released upon payment of duty and other dues as per the Tribunal's order. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, keeping the substantial questions of law open for future adjudication.

Conclusion:
In light of the previous judgments and the confirmation by both counsels that goods were released upon payment of dues, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, with the substantial questions of law left open for further proceedings.

---