TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act r/w Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and consequently the importers were found to be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The officers of Customs at the Docks carried out 100% examination of the goods in the presence of empanelled Chartered Engineers viz. M/s. Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Chennai and found the goods to be used and old photocopiers as declared in the respective Bills of Entry and connected import documents. The Chartered Engineers appraised the value of the goods, which was found to be much higher than what had been declared by the importers. When the Customs authorities proposed enhancement of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of duty, besides confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty, the importers (party-appellants) waived show-cause notice but requested for opportunity of being heard. Given this opportunity, they made written submissions before the Commissioner requesting inter alia for acceptance of the declared value of the goods as certified by the load port Chartered Engineer. They also relied on certain dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth sides and considering their submissions, we find that there is no valid challenge in the importers' appeals against confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act inasmuch as, admittedly, all the imports were made subsequent to the amendment of the EXIM Policy which required specific licence for import of secondhand photocopiers but the imports were made without such licence. Hence the confiscation is upheld. The question now arises as to whether the redemption fine imposed in each case by learned Commissioner is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Indisputably, the value of the goods has a bearing on the quantum of redemption fine. Therefore, the next question to be addressed is as to what should be the assessable value of the goods in each case. 3. Learned Commissioner has rejected the declared value and determined higher value for the goods in each case on the basis of local Chartered Engineer's appraisal. Learned counsel for the party-appellants have cited the following decisions of this Bench against such rejection of declared value :- (i) Sri Venkatesh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 818 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x court after noting that none of the exceptions under Rule 4(2) was found to exist in that case. Their lordships applied the same ruling to a case of import of secondhand machinery in the case of Tolin Rubbers (supra). It is also pertinent to note that, in the latter case, a Chartered Engineer's valuation was the basis adopted by the Customs authorities for rejecting the declared value of the imported goods. The declared value was accepted by the court as there was no exceptional circumstance as laid down under Rule 4(2) in the said case for justifying the rejection of such value. In the case of Sri Venkatesh Enterprises (supra), this Bench followed the above decisions of the apex court and accepted the transaction value of the goods imported by the assessee. In the result, the valuation done by the Commissioner is set aside and it is directed that the declared value of the goods be accepted for the purpose of levy of duty thereon. Consequent upon this decision of ours, the redemption fine and penalty require to be reduced. The total declared value of the goods being Rs. 17,70,775/-, the quantum of redemption fine can appropriately be restricted to Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case. Learned Commissioner has not established any in the impugned orders. Therefore, as we have held in the case of Omex International covered by Final Order No. 437/07 ibid, the declared value of the goods in question is liable to be accepted and it is ordered accordingly. 5. An oft-repeated observation of the Commissioner, found in the impugned orders, is to the effect that the difference between the load port Chartered Engineer's valuation and the local Chartered Engineer's valuation generated 'a reasonable doubt' about the declared value. This would mean that the local Chartered Engineer's report was only a cause of reasonable doubt about the correctness of the declared value. However, learned Commissioner was quick to accept it as conclusive evidence against the declared value without any corroborative evidence. This, in our view, is not permissible in law. 6. We have found that there is no misdeclaration of value by the assessees. The declared value shall be accepted in each case. Consequently, the quantum of redemption fine determined by the Commissioner having regard to the enhanced value of the goods in each case requires to be reduced where it is in....