TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-export-basis from their sister concern, M/s. Bechtel Equipment Services, Indonesia vide Bills of Entry Nos. 266 and 270 both dated 6-10-1999. The appellant declared the value of the aforesaid machinery based on a chartered engineer's certificate issued in Indonesia which indicated a price of US $ 46,60,072.86 FOB. The Revenue wanted an independent confirmation and directed the appellant to have the valuation done by SGS India Ltd. The goods were provisionally assessed enhancing the declared FOB value by US $ 146,000 and accepting a revenue deposit of the provisionally assessed duty. The said goods were evaluated by SGS India and the price certified by them is US $ 46,54,770. On this basis, the declared value of all second-hand machinery fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r calculation done on the above basis, the assessing officer should have taken value declared by the importer or the depreciated value as per the Board's instructions whichever is higher. If this is done, there is a short levy of Rs. 64,19,113/- in one bill of entry and Rs. 19,54,667/- in respect of another. The lower appellate authority upheld the Revenue's contention and hence the appellant is before us. 4. The ld. counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (a) The value of the machinery has been evaluated by two agencies, that is, the chartered engineer in Indonesia at the time of shipment and by M/s. SGS India after the import as directed by the Customs authorities. In the evaluation don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule on the basis of a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of the two alternative values. Therefore, the method suggested by Revenue is not permissible in law. (d) They rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Debabrata Ghosh [1993 (68) E.L.T. 551 (Cal.)] wherein it was held that while determining value under the best judgment method under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, allowing depreciation at a rate much lower the rate of 20% per annum adopted for income-tax purposes is arbitrary and fictitious valuation and the same is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8(2)(ii) and 8(2)(iv). The decision of this Tribunal in the case of ZMS Tools Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue wants to adopt, there has to be consistency. If the Revenue wants to adopt depreciation method, the same should be followed uniformly in respect of all the parts/components consisting of the machinery. They cannot pick and choose depreciation method in respect of some parts and adopt the Chartered Engineer's assessed value in respect of some other parts/components merely because the assessed value is higher the one arrived at following the depreciation method. As the popular saying goes "one cannot have the cake and eat it too". Rule 8(2)(ii) specifically prohibits a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the highest of the two alternative values. The ratio of the decisions in the cases of Debabrata Ghosh and ....