TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l release of the impugned goods. 2. Heard Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri S. Sankaranarayanan, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned Order-in-Appeal and which are undisputed, inter alia, are that the respondent viz. M/s. Kutty Impex filed Bill-of-Entry No. 4584446 dated 21.08.2019 for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments and classifying the goods under CTH 84433100; that the Revenue having noticed that the goods were second hand in nature, adhering to the RMS/CCR instructions mentioned in the EDI system and as per the prevailing p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejected in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the value as Rs.95,83,631/- (CIF) (Rupees Ninety Five lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty One only) under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. (ii) Confiscation of 502 units of goods declared as 'Old & Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines with Standard Accessories' covered under Bill-of-Entry No. 4584446 dated 21.08.2019 under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the provisions of imports, as discussed. (iii) Imposed redemption fine of Rs.14,38,000/- (Rup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers v. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II in Special Leave Petition No. 7565 of 2021 & ors. dated 11.08.2021 to order for provisional release of the goods. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers (supra) as well as the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.P. Associates (supra). 8.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, while staying confiscation of the goods in view of the fact that the Notification dated 01.04.2020 was the subject matter of controversy before the Apex Court, had allowed the provisional release of the goods involved. This Bench in M/s. S.P. Assoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (m) under which the goods were confiscated by the lower authorities are reproduced below: SECTION 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: - (a) ... ... ... ... ... ... (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; ... ... (l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of bag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation which was not disputed by either of the parties did not call for any interference. With regard to the goods in question being hazardous in nature within the meaning of the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, the Bench has observed that the goods in question were useful goods with residual life and therefore, cannot be called as 'hazardous waste'. The Bench has inter alia observed that: "35. We have already discussed above that goods in question were not waste in the first place but are useful articles with residual life whose value has been enhanced by Customs authorities and therefore the provisions of Hazardous Waste Rules do not apply. In view of the above, we h....