Facts

• The Respondent, M/s. SRK overseas, filed Bill of Entry 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. 
• 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, and 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%. 
• It is found in the order in original that the respondent had not complied with the provisions of Domestic laws under the BIS Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012 and failed to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods, and had not produced Chartered Engineer Certificate in complete and properly, as advised by the Department. 
• Thereby re determined the value of imported goods 272 units of goods declared as old and used Digital Multifunctional Print and Copying Machines with Standard Accessories. Further, confiscated 272 units of goods declared as ‘Old & Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines with Standard Accessories’. Also imposed redemption of fines as per section 125, 112(a)(i) ,and 117 of the Customs Act,1962.
• Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority having heard the appellant as well as the representative (Mr. R. Syam Prasad, Appraiser) for the Revenue, allowed the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the impugned goods, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue before this forum.

Issue 

• Whether the release of impugned goods are in order ?

Order 

• The Tribunal observed and followed the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II v. M/s. Kutty Impex in Customs Appeal No. 40390 of 2022 [CESTAT, Chennai], wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts. The same is followed in the case as well. 
• Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.