TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enhanced to Rs.6,91,711/- for assessment purpose. It was also noticed that since these old and used items required a licence under foreign trade policy 2004-2009 and no licence was produced by the appellant and the goods were liable for confiscation, redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority has confiscated the old and used CRT monitors size 17" valued at Rs.6,91,711/- under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option was given to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1 lakh. A penalty of Rs.2 lakh was also imposed on the appellant. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has extensively gone through the order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as grounds of appeal taken by the appellant. The appellant took the plea that market enquiry was conducted at their back and no copy of chartered engineer's report was given. The redemption fine and penalty have been imposed without calculating margin of profit and it is on higher side, 4. It is also observed from the records that the appellant waived issue of show cause notice and agreed to the order in original passed by the Additional Commissioner indicating that they accepted the finding in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y not exceeding the value of the goods could be imposed in the case of the goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. In the present case, the goods were imported against the Foreign Trade Policy under which they were restricted goods and it could not have been imported without obtaining a valid licence/permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the penalty could have been imposed up to the value of the goods which was Rs. 5,96,676/-. Even if the goods were to be treated as "other than prohibited goods" covered by clause (ii) of Section 112 of the said Act, penalty could have extended up to the duty sought to be evaded, which in the present case was Rs. 2,85,271/-. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the penalty of Rs. 1 lac Imposed by the adjudicating authority could have been treated as unjustified, much less harsh." 6. We have examined the submissions relating to non grant of personal hearing and valuation being arrived at their back. As per facts mentioned in the preceding paras, it clearly comes out that their plea about non grant of personal hearing is totally false. Further they have n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artered Engineers certificate and not of personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). As there is nothing on record to show that the appellants were associated with the market inquiry and the result of the same was given to the appellants along with a copy of Chartered Engineers certificate, I feel constrained to accept the above submission of the appellant. 12. In any case and in any view of the matter, the question required to be decided is as to whether such market inquiries or the Chartered Engineers certificate reflecting upon the cost of old and used monitor can be held to be a legal evidence so as to enhance the value of the imported goods. Admittedly, the goods in question are old and used and the value of the same depends upon number of factors like the usage of the goods and the condition of the same. The appellants have declared the value of same as 10676 Euros, i.e. Rs. 5,81,005/-. The same were accompanied by invoices issued by the foreign supplier and bill of lading. 13. Revenue has not adduced any evidence to first discard the declared value as incorrect. It is well settled law that the transaction value has to be adopted as the correct assessable value unless t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceptance of the enhanced value. Tribunal in the case of Digitech Photocopier has observed that appellants accepted the enhancement of the value because they have already incurred huge detention and demurrage charges and wanted to avoid further burden. Similarly, in the case of Bhawana Spinning Mills, it was observed that payment of duty at the enhanced rate under protest does not amount to acceptance of the enhanced value. Merely because the appellants waived the issuance of show cause notice for quick release of the goods does not mean that they are stopped from challenging the enhanced value by the Revenue. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no reason to discard the transaction value, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and in the light of various decisions as discussed above. 14. As regards the violation of EXIM Policy, the learned advocate has drawn our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 10% and 5% of the value of the photocopier. I note that in the case of Navpad Enterprises vs. CC, Cochin [2009 (235) ELT 376 (Tri-Bang)], redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 10% and 5% after re....