Import licence and valuation rules for used photocopiers: declared value must stand absent contemporaneous import evidence.

Old and used photocopiers treated as capital goods permissible under the EXIM Policy could not be denied import on the footing that an import licence was required; a departmental circular could not override the policy position reflected in prior decisions, so confiscation and fine on that basis were unsustainable. On valuation, the Revenue bore the burden of proving under-valuation and, absent evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, the declared transaction value of second-hand machinery had to be accepted. Redetermination under Rule 8 by applying depreciation was therefore unjustified, and the declared value stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether old and used photocopiers were restricted goods requiring an import licence under the EXIM Policy, and (ii) whether the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand machinery could be rejected and valuation could be redetermined in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports.

Issue (i): whether old and used photocopiers were restricted goods requiring an import licence under the EXIM Policy

Analysis: The imported photocopiers were treated as capital goods permissible for import under the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had already taken the same view, and that a departmental circular could not prevail over the policy position as applied in those decisions. On that basis, the finding that the goods required a licence was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The requirement of an import licence was negatived and the confiscation and fine on this ground could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand machinery could be rejected and valuation could be redetermined in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports

Analysis: The burden to prove under-valuation lay on the Revenue. In the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods, the declared transaction value had to be accepted, including for second-hand machinery. The order of valuation under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, by applying depreciation, was therefore not justified on the materials on record.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transaction value was held to be incorrect and the declared value was to be accepted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports, the Revenue cannot reject the declared transaction value, and goods permissible under the EXIM Policy cannot be treated as requiring an import licence contrary to the applicable policy position and binding judicial view.

---