UNITOP OFFICE AUTOMATION Vs. CC, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, filed by M/s Unitop Office Automation, the issue involved is whether the copier components imported by them are classifiable under Sub -heading No 9009.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under Sub -heading 9009.21 as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order No. 30/2000 dt. 24 -4 -2000 and whether the enahncement of value declared by them is warranted.

(2.) Shri B.B.Gujral, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are regularly importing old and used re -conditioned components of photocopier machine against special licences for marketing them since these are available at cheap prices at abroad; that in the present matter also, they imported a consignment of components of photocopier machine from England; that they filed a Bill of Entry on 15 -4 -99 for clearance of 123 items of components in different quantities declaring them as old and used reconditioned copier components classifable under sub -heading 9000.90 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA); that the value declared by them was Rs. 2,17,638.34 p, based on the invoice; that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, held that they had imported the complete photocopiers classifiable under Sub -heading 9009.21 of CTA; no significant parts here missing from the consignment of unassembled or disassembled photocopiers; import of old and used photocopier was allowed only under a specific license which they did not possess and the correct value of the goods was Rs. 20,37,757.80 paise; that the Commissioner, therefore, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -

(3.) The ld. Advocate, further, submitted that they have not imported complete photocopiers and as such they have not mis -declared any fact in the Bill of Enry filed by them; that the component parts imported by them were about 80 -85% only which would not make a complete machine ready to use; that accordingly Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff is not applicable to the import made by them; that Chartered Engineers have clearly certified that they had carefully inspected and valued the old, used and reconditioned photo copier components; that they had further mentioned in the certificate that they had taken into consideration the period of use of the components and their present condition after reconditioning; that such a specific certificate cannot be rejected on the basisof a mere routine examination of the Shed Appraiser; that the exporter, M/s Virtual International have also mentioned, in their letter dt 22 -10 -1999, that they had exported old/used component parts which had been properly re -conditioned and were fit for further use as components of photocopier machine; that exporter had also given a list of important parts which were missing in the said letter. The ld. Advocate also mentioned that the expert opinion of Training and Technical, Canon India Pvt. Ltd, has been obtained behind their back and as such cannot be relied upon by the Department; that Shri Arun Saxena, Training and Technical Support Manager, Cannon India Ltd. in his cross examination has clearly mentioned that only 80 to 85% parts were available and that he had never said that it was a complete photo copier. He also mentioned that M/s Cannon India Pvt. Ltd in their letter dt. 19 -8 -99 has thanked the Commissioner for his time and effort in trying to stop the illegal export of second hand Cannon Coppier and as such they had become an interested party and any report submitted by them is not legally admissible under the law; that thus Department has failed to discharge its responsibility and the conclusions arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority that the imported goods are only old and used photo coppier machines are incrorrect and based on suspicion without any basis.