TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout import licence and filed Bills of Entry claiming clearance of the goods under OGL. These imports were made after para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy 2004-2009 was amended by the competent authority as per Notification No. 31/2005 dated 19-10-2005 requiring specific licence for import of secondhand photocopiers. Therefore, the subject goods, imported without licence, appeared to be-1 liable for confiscation 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d cess as applicable, and imposed penalties on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for rendering the goods liable for confiscation. These results of adjudication are tabulated below :- (The importers' appeals are against the enhancement of value, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Reference of these appeals are also given in the table below). No. Name of the Importer Declared Value Enhanced Value Redemption Fine Penalty Appeal No. (In Rupees) 1. Balaji Office Equipment 25,15,110/- 42,92,100/- 4,30,000 85,000 C/118/06 2. S & S International 40,13,523/- 55,15,605/- 5,52,000 1,10,000 C/119/06 3. G.S. Enterprises 27,14,046/- 34,52,066/- 3,46,000 69,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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 (Tri. Chennai) (ii) Final Order No. 437/2007 dated 18-4-2007 in Appeal No. C/70/2006, [Omex International v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 248 (T)]. Learned SDR has relied on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce any evidence to substantiate the declared value; and (d) independent/approved Chartered Engineer in India appraised the value of the goods at US $ 48,855 (C & F) as against the declared value of US $ 39,550 after inspecting the goods. We find that none of these reasons constitutes any of the exceptions laid down under the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Therefore, as rightly submitted by Id. counsel, rejection of the transaction value is against the mandate of law embodied in the judgments of the apex court. In the case of Eicher Tractors (supra), the value of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act by the apex court after noting that none of the exceptions under Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ificate. Learned Commissioner rejected the load port Chartered Engineer's certificate in each case on the ground that the Chartered Engineer was not an authorized agency for Indian Customs requirements inasmuch as their name did not find place in the list appended to the Handbook of Procedure (Volume - I) of the EXIM Policy. But learned SDR has not convincingly answered our query as to whether, in respect of import of secondhand machinery, it was a legal requirement that any load port Chartered Engineer certifying the value of the goods should be one empanelled under the EXIM Policy. Another reason found by learned Commissioner for rejecting the load port Chartered Engineer's appraisal of value of goods is that such appraisal was based on p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods 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 ....