(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under: -
(2.) SH . V.P. Batra, learned Departmental Representative assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal and pleaded that during the period when this import had been made, the import of second -hand Photocopier Machines was restricted and could be made only against the import licence, that the goods imported - - old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines are nothing but old and used photocopier machines and hence the same were restricted items, that in this regard he relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Jay Dev Industries reported in, 2012 (279) E.L.T. 375 and also in the case of Unitech Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs reported in : 2012 (279) E.L.T. 236, wherein it was held that Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine is essentially a Photocopier Machine and hence the import of old and used digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines was restricted since 19 -10 -2005 in terms of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, that Apex Court has also in the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. reported in : 2009 (235) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) held that the import of photocopier machines was restricted since 19 -10 -2005, that in view of this, the impugned order holding that the old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines were freely importable is not correct, that Commissioner (Appeals)'s observation with regard to valuation of the goods is also not correct, as the actual value of the goods as certified by the Chartered Engineer on the basis of the residual life of the machines is Rs. 34,92,576/ - as against the declared value of Rs. 31,83,127/ - and hence the assessable value has been mis -declared and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.