TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over Photocopier Valuation & Exim Policy Violation Sanctions. Appeal upheld in part.</h1> <h3>PALLAVANCHAL & MERCHANDISER’S FIRM Versus COMMR. OF CUS., VISAKHAPATNAM</h3> The appellant appealed against the adjudication order challenging the valuation of old photocopier components. The Commissioner increased the value based ... Valuation - Second hand machinery - Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of Issues:- Appeal against adjudication order for valuation of old and used components of photocopier- Contention regarding uncertainty of year of manufacture and reliance on Chartered Engineer's certificate- Discrepancy in declared value of imported goods- Confiscation of goods under Exim Policy violationAnalysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, challenging the valuation of old and used components of photocopiers. The Commissioner had increased the value of the goods from US $27,776 to US $43,836 based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate. The appellant argued that the year of manufacture of the components was uncertain, even though the Chartered Engineer confirmed they were 5 to 8 years old. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that without a specific year of manufacture, enhancing the value based on the certificate was not justified.The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the valuation based on the Chartered Engineer certificate, alleging that the appellant had not declared the correct value of the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the certificate mentioned the goods were 5 to 8 years old without specifying the year of manufacture. There was no evidence to prove that the appellant had paid more than the invoice value. In the absence of a clear year of manufacture, the Tribunal found the basis for enhancing the value to be unreliable and decided to reject the transaction value.Acknowledging that the goods were imported in violation of the Exim Policy, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods. However, considering the value declared by the appellant, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakh and the penalty to Rs. one lakh. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal finding no fault in the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the goods under the Exim Policy violation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
