2018 (4) TMI 552 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Customs Valuation & Import Policy Decision

M/s. Big Apple Mfg. Versus CCE, Hyderabad-II

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal affirmed the enhanced value ... Misdeclaration of description and quantity of imported goods - import of second hand goods - restricted goods - the original authority has not given the calculation for margin of profit either in the notice or in the order and remanded the matter to enable such calculation - Held that: - The import pertains to September 2006. At this point more than 11 years have elapsed. After such a gap of time, it would not be possible to cause cross verification of the appellant’s claim concerning the reconditioned nature of the imported goods - the Chartered Engineer’s Certificate did not mention about the claimed recondition of the impugned goods but that the goods were mentioned as used, hence would require license for import. When actual freight and insurance was available that should have been taken instead of a notional quantum. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues: Determination of transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules, consideration of submissions regarding import policy, reliance on Chartered Engineer's certificate, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, alleged discrepancies in certificates.Determination of transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules:The case involved the appellant challenging the determination of the transaction value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without ruling out valuation under Rule 4 onwards. The appellant argued that this approach was illegal and unjust, citing previous decisions and judgments. The Tribunal considered this argument but ultimately upheld the enhanced value, stating that the goods, being reconditioned, required a license for import as per the import policy in force.Consideration of submissions regarding import policy:The appellant contended that used micro-processors were freely importable, and no license was needed for their importation. However, the Tribunal found that the goods in question were classified as used, not reconditioned, and thus required a license for import. The Tribunal also noted that the Chartered Engineer's certificate did not mention the claimed reconditioning of the goods, further supporting the requirement for a license.Reliance on Chartered Engineer's certificate:The case involved conflicting certificates from the Chartered Engineer regarding the nature of the imported goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting reports but ultimately relied on the original certificate, which stated that the goods were used and required a license for import. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that a second report was prepared under pressure from the department.Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:The appellant argued that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was unwarranted. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the original authority under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, finding no grounds for interference.Alleged discrepancies in certificates:The appellant raised concerns about discrepancies in the certificates provided by the Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns but ultimately upheld the decision based on the original certificate, which indicated that the goods were used and required a license for import. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered and adjudged upon these discrepancies.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the enhanced value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal found no infirmity with the impugned order and sustained it, emphasizing the requirement for a license for the import of used goods as per the import policy in force.