TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. & dt. Description of goods Customs Tariff Heading Declared FOB value 1. 1411 28/4/2005 01 PC Used Cone Machine (HAAS STAK-60) in no working condition (As per invoice) 84381010 4000 Euros 22. 1412 28/04/2005 01 PC Used Mircowerk, Jensen chocolate Depositing Plant & 01 PC used Ericsen / Aastedt Lentil Plant (01 Unit packed in three containers) (As per Invoice & Packing list) 84381010 12699 US$ 2. Pursuant to intelligence, the officers of DRI, Hyderabad, inter alia, examined the said consignment at the Inland Container Depot, Hyderabad on 10/11-05-2005 in the presence of Shri Lakhbir Mutchall, Director of BBL (seco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judication proceedings, the original authority vide impugned order interalia ordered re-determination of transaction value respectively from Rs. 2,80,150/- declared to Rs. 6,84,338/- declared to Rs. 15,38,523/- and Rs. 10,43,865/- declared to Rs. 31,47,185/-. The original authority also demanded differential duty of Rs. 10,49,039/- under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscated the goods, however allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 125 ibid. Penalty of Rs. 2,62,259.75 was also imposed on BBL under first proviso to Section 114 of the Act subject to payment of reduced penalty within 30 days of date of communication of the order. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on BBL and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was not followed by the original authority and thereby the original authority traversed beyond the show-cause notice. 5. On the other hand, Shri M. Chander Bose, learned AR for the Department, supports the adjudication. 6. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 7. We propose to take up the various contentions of the appellant. In the first place, the appellant has alleged that the adjudicating authority has not followed procedure stipulated in Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 while determining the value of the impugned goods. However on a careful analysis of the show-cause notice and the impugned order, we find that these contentions are misconceived. We find that the adjudicating authority has applied his mind and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Rules provides that the transaction value of imported goods under Rule 4(1) of the Rules shall be accepted provided that the sale does not involve any abnormal discount or reduction from the ordinary competitive price. 12. In the current proceedings, it was felt that the sale involved a reduction the ordinary competitive price satisfying the stipulation of Rule 492)(b) of the Rules. The reasonable belief was on the basis of intelligence received by the DRI that the imported goods were grossly under-valued. It is pertinent to observe that even for the special circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) Rule 10A of the Rules has to be invoked for calling for the documents etc., to determine the truth or accuracy of the value declared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bills of entry involved in the present proceedings. 9. The last main contention of the appellant is that focal Chartered Engineer had adopted unscientific methods while recommending their values and that for several queries made during cross-examination, Chartered Engineer had answered in negative. True, from the recording of cross-examination of local Chartered Engineer on 15/06/2006, it is seen that advocate for the appellants did try to corner the said witness, in fact even making frivolous queries as to whether the Chartered Engineer had made market inquiry. On the other hand, Chartered Engineer has steadfastly stood his ground on the methods followed by him, and on a particular reference to a query on basis of arrival of value, he ....