2019 (12) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill of entry No. 2473317, dated 23.12.2010. After following due process, the original authority has: (a) enhanced the value of the goods and accordingly charged additional duty which the appellant is not challenging; (b) held that MFDs imported by them being of second hand in nature are liable for confiscation in terms of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation Act), 1992. Accordingly, he ordered the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed their redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,30,000/- under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (c) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,60,000/- upon the importer un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....018(2) TMI 584 (CESTAT-Mumbai) (f) Best Xerox vs. CC Cochin [2017(8) TMI 459 (CESTAT-Bangalore) (g) CC Tuticorin vs. City Office Equipment [2014(302) ELT 212 (Mad.)] 5. She would submit that in view of the above, the confiscation of MFD copiers may be set aside and the penalty imposed upon them also be set aside. 6. Ld. DR on the other hand argues that there is no distinction between MFD copiers and other copiers. Once photocopiers are restricted for import, even MFD copiers should be treated as restricted for import. He relies on the case law of Unitech Enterprises vs. CC Chennai [2012(279) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Chennai). He also argues that the confiscation in this case was not only on account of restrictions under the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Digital Copiers prior to 05.06.2012 was not restricted. While deciding this matter, they have also considered the judgment of the Tribunal Chennai in the case of Unitech Enterprises [2012(279)ELT 236 (Tri.-Chennai)], relied upon by the Ld. DR. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the import of the impugned goods is not restricted and their confiscation under section 111(d) is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. We have also considered the argument of Ld. Counsel that confiscation was also on account of under valuation of the goods which has been conceded by the importer. A plain reading of the Order-in-Original shows that confiscation was held under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 which pertains ....