Tribunal remands case on assessable value of imported machinery, orders duty refund to Consumer Welfare Fund. Appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal remanded the case for determining the assessable value of imported second-hand machinery based on the unit price in the supplier's invoice, correcting the officer's designation. The Additional Commissioner ordered the refund of duty to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, finding that the duty incidence had not been passed on by the importer. The appeal was dismissed due to the failure to provide evidence supporting the contention that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---

---

Issues: Valuation of imported second-hand machinery, Denial of refund of duty, Passing on the incidence of duty

Valuation of imported second-hand machinery:
The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of second-hand machinery, including a Solna 225 offset printing machine and a guillotine. Upon examination, an additional Solna two-color offset machine was found. The issue arose regarding the valuation of these machines. The Tribunal accepted the importer's argument that the value of second-hand machinery should not be based on other similar machinery unless identical in characteristics and use. The case was remanded for determining the assessable value based on the unit price indicated in the supplier's invoice. The subsequent order corrected the designation of the officer for this determination.

Denial of refund of duty:
The Dy. Commissioner of Customs determined the value of the machinery and ordered consequential relief, subject to Section 27(2) of the Act. A notice was issued proposing to deny the refund of duty due to the importer. The Additional Commissioner found that the duty incidence had not been passed on and ordered the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeals were made against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders confirming these decisions.

Passing on the incidence of duty:
The appellant contended that the duty incidence had not been passed on and requested time to produce supporting documents. However, upon the failure to provide such evidence, the refund was confirmed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.

---