Import licence and valuation disputes: old used printers were freely importable, and declared value could not be rejected without corroboration.

Import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printers was treated as freely importable for the relevant period, so no specific import licence was required and the goods could not be regarded as prohibited or restricted on that basis. Declared transaction value could not be rejected merely because a Chartered Engineer's certificate suggested a different value; enhancement required independent corroborative evidence showing false or mis-declared value. In the absence of such material, the declared value had to be accepted, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printer required a specific licence under the foreign trade policy regime; (ii) whether the declared value of the imported goods could be enhanced merely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate without corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printer required a specific licence under the foreign trade policy regime.

Analysis: The import restriction issue had already been settled in earlier Tribunal precedent dealing with identical goods and the same policy framework. On that basis, the Tribunal reiterated that the goods were not subject to a licensing restriction for the relevant period, and the consignment could not be treated as prohibited or restricted for want of a specific import licence.

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

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

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the settled view that a Chartered Engineer's assessment, by itself, is not enough to reject the declared transaction value. Enhancement of value requires supporting material showing that the declared value is false or mis-declared; in the absence of corroborative evidence, reliance only on the engineer's certificate is insufficient.

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.

Ratio Decidendi: Where identical imported goods are shown to be freely importable for the relevant period, and valuation is sought to be rejected only on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's certificate, the declared value cannot be disturbed without independent corroborative evidence.

---