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>Tribunal Upholds Decision on Import Valuation, Reduces Penalty</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI Versus SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI Versus SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 481 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Proper procedure for rejecting transaction value.2. Acceptance of valuation by Chartered Engineers.3. Violation of import policy.4. Confiscation of goods.5. Imposition of fine and penalty.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the rejection of the transaction value by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not follow the proper procedure in rejecting the value and failed to provide convincing reasons for not accepting the valuation by the first Chartered Engineer. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the first Chartered Engineer's valuation should not have been rejected without valid reasons.2. The case revolved around the valuation of imported used computer CPUs by two Chartered Engineers. The first Chartered Engineer, M/s. The Kaizen, appraised the goods at US $24,152, while the second Chartered Engineer, M/s. Superintendence Company (I) P. Ltd., valued the goods at US $31,032. The Tribunal acknowledged that the first Chartered Engineer's valuation was unfairly rejected without justification, highlighting the importance of following proper procedures in such matters.3. Another issue addressed in the appeal was the violation of the import policy due to the nature of the imported goods being second-hand machinery, which required a specific import license. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the first appellate authority in upholding the violation of the import policy, leading to the confiscation of the goods.4. The Tribunal also considered the confiscation of the impugned goods as valid, as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal found the reduced fine and penalty to be reasonable, indicating that there was no strong reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the proper procedure should be followed in assessing the value of imported goods and that decisions regarding fines and penalties should be reasonable and justified. The judgment was delivered on 13-9-2005 in open court, bringing closure to the legal dispute.
TaxTMI 