TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificate from Chartered Engineer indicated the year of manufacture as 1994. The price of a new machine was stated at Euro 61,000.00. The Chartered Engineer also certified as under : - "I personally feel that the total price of Euro 25,000.00 CFR New Delhi charged by the supplier is fair and reasonable and prevailing in the market." 2. The machine was subjected to examination by the Customs Authorities and under an adjudication order dated 27-5-2003 Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tuglakabad, New Delhi confiscated the machine on the ground that "the impugned machine can be logically taken as having been manufactured between 1960 and 1976", and for this reason its import was in violation of Import Control Policy which allowed the import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Sl. Number and year of manufacture. The appellants allege that it is after suppressing this vital information in the examination report that a finding on the year of manufacture was recorded. They also have pointed out that Commissioner committed a grave error in going by the particulars recorded on a part, of the machine, which was not relevant to the issue of year of manufacture of the machine. They have submitted that if only the full examination report had been presented before the adjudicating authority and it had been considered by him, a grossly incorrect finding about the year of manufacture of the machine would not have been reached. It is also submitted that a finding that the machine was manufactured between 1960 and 1976 could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....  : Declared Euro = 33,800.00 Assessable value = 18,68,529.00 Determined (B)(i) B/E No.-Dt/CC/TYP 307496/01/05/2003/NH (ii) Description of machine   : Second hand Automatic Shuttle Embroidery machine NE SAURER TYPE IS 10 Yards Computerized. Sl. No. 19335, Year of manufacture 1994. (iii) Declared   = 8000.00 Euro Assessable value Determined = Rs. 4,26,520/-. Transaction values and years of manufacture as 1994 was accepted in both the cases." The facts stated by the appellants about contemporaneous imports have gone un-contradict by the Revenue. 4. With regard to the valuation of the machine, the submission of the appellant is that since there was no evidence call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easonable and is not sustainable. 6. The finding on valuation has also been reached unreasonably and in clear violation of the Valuation Rules. In the event of discarding transaction value, assessable value has to be arrived at through methods prescribed in the Rules. Rule 5 of Valuation Rules provides for going by the value of identical goods "imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued." Time is the essence in commercial transactions. This Rule enshrines this. But Commissioner has paid no heed to this and has adopted a 1999 import (carried out four years back) as the basis for comparison. That too, when identical goods had been imported through the same ICD just a month back. Thus, valuation done under the impugned ....