2016 (12) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after examined in the presence of AC/Docks of SSIB officers. The examination report revealed mis-declaration of quantity and country of origin. In the further examination, it was observed that value of the machine was not correctly declared. The DRI has suggested valuation of the identical goods which was related different investigation. Accordingly it was alleged that there is mis-declaration of the value also. It was further contended that imported photocopiers are second hand and old, accordingly as per para 2.17 of the Export and Import Policy 2002-07 import of second hand goods require licence as per the provision of policy. On this allegation, matter was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority wherein value was enhanced from Rs. 7,8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are matching. Even in case where different quantity was vice-versa mentioned in both the case, the value of the machine is same therefore this minor mistake does not affect the valuation and consequential duty. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Omex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi[2015(328) ELT 579(Tri. Del)]. The lower authorities have contended that the photocopier being second hand goods required licence under the import and export policy. In this regard, he submits that second hand photocopier is capital goods and second hand capital goods is freely importable in terms of para 2.33 of the policy. Therefore there was no need of any licence. In this support he p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are different but total quantity of the photocopier imported and declared by the importer are matching i.e. 46 number of photocopiers. We also find that in the discrepancy of the quantity in one model, it was observed that value declared in both the case is same therefore it cannot be said that appellant has intentionally mis-declared the quantity of goods. The lower authorities also confirmed the charge that the photocopier is governed by para 2.17 of foreign trade policy, accordingly to which the import is restricted and therefore it requires licence for import. In this regard, we have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Atual commodity Ltd(supra) wherein it was accepted that the restriction of import of second h....