2022 (8) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and also the impugned goods do not require any licence for import into India. Accordingly, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original." 2.1 The respondents had filed Bill of Entry No.4009612 dated 07.07.2011 for clearance of 183 units of used printers declaring the value at Singapore Dollars 11932 CIF. 2.2. The goods were examined by an independent Chartered Engineer who vide its report dt. 27.07.2011 finds as follows : "The goods offered for inspection were identified as Used printers; the said items are used, not reconditioned and found in good condition; that due to fast technological developments, the same model machines may not be in production; the said goods are used for printing and copying; ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te i.e. used, obsolete and discarded printers imported vide Bill of Entry No.4009612 dated 07.07.2011 valued at Rs.8,10,521/- (CIF) under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 3 of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, Articles 1 and 2 of Basel Convention and Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. (iii) I reject the declared value SGD 11,932 (CIF) of the subject goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.4009612 dated 07.07.2011 under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of imported goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determine the value of the said goods at SGD 23,055 (CIF) EQUIVALENT TO Rs.8,10,521/- (CIF) under rules 9 of CVR 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, have already been dealt with by this Court, in its order, dated 27.2.2012, made in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 etc. (batch). The said order had been followed by this Court in a number of writ petitions. One such order had been passed, on 11.7.2012, in W.P.No.13050 of 2012 etc. (batch). Further, paragraph 5 of the order, dated 9.4.2012, made in W.P.No.2401 of 2012 etc. (batch) reads as follows :  "Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the authorities to release the goods in question which had already been inspected by the authorised engineers, on payment of the appropriate customs duty, subject to the adjudication process conducte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30.12.2011, made in C.Cus.No.873/2011, had become final, as the said order had not been challenged by the respondent customs department. However, the goods in question had not been released by the respondents, till date, in spite of the requests made by the petitioner for their release. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that writ appeals have been filed, in W.A.No.824 of 2012 etc. (batch), before this Court, challenging the order, dated 27.2.2012, made in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 etc. (batch) and the said writ appeals are pending before a Division Bench. 5. In such circumstanc....