TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in fine as well as quantum of penalty. 2. The following are the substantial questions of law raised for our consideration :- "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the respondent that there was misdeclaration since the importer did not furnish the Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificate, when there is no mandatory requirement under the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 to furnish Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificate when a person imports Second-hand Goods? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the respondent that the appellate had misdeclared the value of the impugned goods [and the misdeclaration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der estimated by the appellant and its actual value was Euro 3,20,000 and as such there was undervaluation of Rs. 1,77,83,805/-. In view of this misdeclaration of value, a notice was issued to the appellant on 19-1-2007 as to why the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112(a) should not be imposed. In response to the said show cause notice, the appellant submitted their reply on 18-6-2007 wherein they have endorsed the valuation made by M/s. S.G.S. India Private Limited and showed their willingness to pay duty as assessed by the load port Chartered Engineer. 5. During the enquiry proceedings, the authorized representative of the appellant submitted before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as deliberately suppressed by the appellant. 7. The Tribunal found that the appellant has not contested the findings of the Commissioner with regard to the valuation as done by the local Chartered Engineer M/s. S.G.S. India Private Limited and as such it was evident that the value as assessed by the load port Chartered Engineer M/s. S.G.S. Spain was correct and they have deliberately suppressed the valuation certificate issued by the load port Chartered Engineer for the purpose of misdeclaration of value in the bill of entry. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant. However the Tribunal was of the opinion that the fine of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner in view of the confiscation of goods was on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant about the misdeclaration and as such the authorities were not justified in imposing penalty as well as fine. 9. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant had accepted in unequivocal terms that they have misdeclared the value of the goods by deliberately suppressing the load port Chartered Engineer's Certificate, which valued the goods at Euro 3,20,000 as against Euro 41,990.86 declared in the invoice. It was his further contention that in case the department accepted the declared value, the Customs Department would have lost customs duty amounting to Rs. 43 lakhs. According to the learned counsel, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value at Euro 1426.80. In the subsequent valuation done by M/s. S.G.S. India Private Limited, the very same valuation as done by M/s. S.G.S. Spain was shown and the said valuation was readily acceptable to the appellant. This shows that the actual valuation was only Euro 3,20,000 which was accepted by the appellant even when the same was imported to India. However in order to gain undue advantage and to misguide the Customs Department they have deliberately shown the value at Euro 37,774.49 for all the machineries in total. 11. The attempt of the appellant to misdeclare the value and to misguide the customs department is also evident from the fact that even when the customs department directed the appellant to obtain the certificat....