Import licence and valuation enhancement require legal restriction or corroborative evidence, not a lone engineer's certificate.

Imports of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers made before 28.02.2013 were not subject to a specific import licence under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures, as earlier Tribunal precedent had already settled that no restriction applied during that period. The Tribunal also reiterated that import valuation cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate unless supported by corroborative evidence; in the absence of such material, the declared value could not be treated as misdeclared. On both issues, the Revenue's challenge failed and the impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printers imported before 28.02.2013 required a licence under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures; (ii) Whether the declared import value could be enhanced merely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate without corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printers imported before 28.02.2013 required a licence under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures.

Analysis: The import restriction issue had already been settled in earlier Tribunal precedent, which held that upto 28.02.2013 there was no restriction on import of the subject goods. Following that settled position, the Tribunal held that the impugned goods did not require a specific import licence.

Conclusion: No licence was required for import of the impugned goods.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared import value could be enhanced merely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that valuation cannot be enhanced solely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate unless supported by corroborative evidence. As no such additional material existed, the declared value could not be treated as misdeclared.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be enhanced merely on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed on both issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import of the goods was unrestricted during the relevant period, and where valuation enhancement rests only on a Chartered Engineer's certificate without independent corroboration, the declared import value cannot be rejected.

---