CESTAT Upholds Confiscation of Import of Digital multi function printer on ground of Absence of Authorization [Read Order]
![CESTAT Upholds Confiscation of Import of Digital multi function printer on ground of Absence of Authorization [Read Order] CESTAT Upholds Confiscation of Import of Digital multi function printer on ground of Absence of Authorization [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CESTAT-Upholds-Confiscation-CESTAT-Confiscation-Import-of-Digital-multi-function-printer-Digital-multi-function-printer-Absence-of-Authorization-taxscan.jpg)
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the confiscation of the import of a digital multi-functional printer on the ground of absence of authorization.
Star Copiers, the appellant assessee imported old and used Printer cum Multifunction Device of Xerox/Canon made from the USA vide Bill of Lading and filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the confiscation of goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.4,22,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,06,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Amit Kumar, the counsel for the assessee contended that in the case of Shrishti Digital Solutions, the court held that even though the photocopier and multi-function print and copying machines fall under the restricted category of second-hand capital goods and cannot be brought under any assumed restriction on par with personal computers/laptops.
Also submitted that the goods were under detention and to avoid demurrage charges, the assesse accepted the enhanced value of the goods as opined by the Chartered Engineer.
Tariq Suliaman, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the assessee was imported the goods without any authorization and liable for confiscation of goods.
The Bench observed that the goods imported used Digital multi-function printers, which are not freely importable, and after the amendment the said goods became importable only against authorization hence the goods were restricted goods.
The two-member bench comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) held that since the assessee was not having any authorization, the goods were liable for confiscation.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates