When the Goods Imported are not Prohibited, No Confiscation u/s 111(d): CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Exercise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has recently, while deciding an appeal filed before it by the Revenue, held that when the goods imported are not prohibited, then no confiscation u/s 111(d) is possible.

The aforesaid observation was made by the Tribunal when the Revenue had preferred an appeal before it, against the Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus. II No. 184/2022, dated 31.03.2022, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, whereby the respondent assessee’s appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Authority, coupled with an order to provisionally release the impugned goods.

The facts of the case were that the respondent, M/s. Kutty Impex, having filed the Bill-of-Entry No. 4584446, dated 21.08.2019, for the clearance of used digital multifunctional printers / devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments, the same was classified under CTH 84433100.

 The Revenue having noticed that the goods were of second hand in nature, adhering to the RMS/CCR instructions mentioned in the EDI system and the prevailing practice,  ordered the same for first check examination to verify it with respect to the Chartered Engineer Report ,to ascertain whether the residual life of these imported goods was 80%, the nature of accessories , the requirement for compliance of the conditions imposed under the Hazardous and Other Wastes Management Rules, 2016 , the E-Waste Management Rules, 2016, the authorization of DGFT under FTP, 2015-20 , as well as the applicability of BIS as required under the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012 apart from the compliance to the RMS instructions.

The Adjudicating Authority having found that the respondent  failed to comply with the provisions of the Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016, read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012, and in obtaining DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods as per paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20; claimed that there is mis-declaration of value of the imported used MFDs too, in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Consequently, ordering the confiscation of the 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, the adjudicating authority also imposed a redemption fine of Rs.14,38,000/- on the importer, in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act along with penalties under Section 112(a)(i) and Section 117. And it is being aggrieved by the said above order, that the appellant assessee had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who allowed the appeal ordering the provisional release of the impugned goods, thereby leaving the Revenue aggrieved to prefer the present appeal before the CESTAT.

“The facts being identical as canvassed at the bar, I do not find any reasons to deviate from the findings arrived at by this Bench in the case of M/s. S.P. Associates”, P. Dinesha, the Judicial member of the forum while hearing the Revenue’s contentions commended.

“And hence, the First Appellate Authority has correctly ordered provisional release of the impugned goods”, the forum added.

Thus, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for being devoid of merits, the Tribunal observed:

“When goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Act, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.”

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