1999 (5) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y both dated 21-7-1993. The importers had declared invoice value of the mixing mill as US $ 21,357 (CIF) and for the extruder US $ 24,921 (CIF). They had also produced a Chartered Engineer's certificate from USA who had certified the year of manufacture of the two machines, the value of equivalent new machinery in terms of US Dollar as well as that the negotiated price at which these machines were imported was found by the Chartered Engineer to be fair. 2. Heard Shri A. Sundar Rajan, learned Advocate for the appellants who submits that the declared transaction value on the Bills of Entry were not accepted by the Custom House and instead straightaway Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules was applied by giving periodical depreciations....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and machinery by giving depreciation on the cost of new identical machinery was a well established practise in all Custom Houses and, therefore, in this case no new procedure was followed. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the records of the case. We find that the issue is no longer res integra as it is covered by the decisions noted above. We find that the facts with respect to the two machines under consideration before us is exactly the same as was considered in these two judgments inasmuch as that the second hand machinery prior to its import was inspected by the Chartered Engineer located abroad and the said Chartered Engineer has given a detailed certificate evidencing to the best of his ability and exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pra). 12. Applying this settled law to the present facts, we find that the impugned Order-in-Original needs to be set aside because :- (i) No instance of contemporaneous imports of like goods has been cited therein, nor it is alleged that fraud is involved in the transaction; (ii) The transaction value of the invoice, duly supported by Chartered Engineer's Certificates (foreign & local), stands rejected merely on these certificates not having details of basis of valuation; and (iii) That after rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4 wrongly on this basis, the order straight-away proceeds to Rule 8, without even a word on why the other intervening rules do not apply. 13. We find that unless Rule 4....