https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329624 Second hand photocopier machines were treated as capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, and were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Relying on an earlier identical decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Atul Commodities, the Tribunal held that the amended Para 2.17 introduced by Notification No. 31 (RE-2005)/2004-2009 did not alter the position for the imports in question, having regard to the transitional provision in Para 1.5 of the Policy. The confiscation was therefore unlawful, and the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:56:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329624 Second hand photocopier machines were treated as capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, and were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Relying on an earlier identical decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Atul Commodities, the Tribunal held that the amended Para 2.17 introduced by Notification No. 31 (RE-2005)/2004-2009 did not alter the position for the imports in question, having regard to the transitional provision in Para 1.5 of the Policy. The confiscation was therefore unlawful, and the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329624