Commissioner of Customs Vs Kutty Impex (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
Facts-
Assessee filed Bill of Entry for clearance of used digital multifunctional printers/ devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments.
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 practice, the cargo covered under the above said Bill-of-Entry was ordered for first check examination.
Adjudicating Authority found that the assessee has not complied with provisions of 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; failed to obtain DGFT authorization and mis-declared the value of imported goods.
Accordingly, declared value was re-determined, 502 units of goods declared as ‘Old & Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying machines with Standard Accessories’ were confiscated u/s 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed redemption fine and penalty.
However, the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion-
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 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 and hence, the First Appellate Authority has correctly ordered provisional release of the impugned goods. When goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) ibid., then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
This appeal is filed by the Revenue 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 First Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee by also ordering provisional 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 practice, the cargo covered under the above said Bill-of-Entry was ordered for first check examination, to verify with respect to Chartered Engineer Report as to whether the residual life of the imported goods was 80%, to verify the nature of accessories, requirement for compliance of conditions imposed under the Hazardous and Other Wastes Management Rules, 2016, E-Waste Management Rules, 2016, authorization of DGFT under FTP, 2015-20 and applicability of BIS as required under Compulsory Registration Order, 2012, apart from compliance to the RMS instructions.
4. The Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original No. 78918/2020 dated 06.01.2021 has inter alia found that the respondent:-
