TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancement in value by the lower authorities for the following reasons :- "The value of the impugned diesel engines has been determined by the Assistant Collector, only after taking into consideration the value of the similar identical goods and based on quotations and invoice which were also disclosed to the appellants. The appellants have not made out a case as to how the impugned engines should be valued for a lower price by any convincing reasons". 3. The second issue involved is whether the goods are liable for absolute confiscation under the Import Export Policy as no import licence covering the said imports was submitted by the appellants. 4. Thus the ld. Collector (Appeals) had not only upheld the enhancement of v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value under Section 14 (1) ibid. In this connection, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Job Printers v. CC as in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.) wherein it was held that comparison of value of another machine in the case of import of second hand machinery was odious as no two machines can be identical. He further cites the decision in the case of Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners as in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 366 (Trib.) wherein it was held that the transaction value supported by a Chartered Engineer's Certificate with respect to second hand machinery cannot be rejected without proof of fraud in the transaction. He also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC v. Chem Crown (I) Ltd. as in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 125 (Tri.) wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not prohibited goods and neither were they notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, therefore the ld. Collector (Appeals) should have exercised her discretion in terms of Section 125 ibid., and should have allowed the goods to be released by the appellants on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. 8. Ld. D.R. draws our attention to the letter of the Central Board of Excise, Customs F. No.467/18/89-Cus. V-ICD, dated 20-8-1990 wherein in point No.1 the issue of determination of Customs value where undervaluation is suspected but where Customs do not have additional evidence to establish fraud was considered. It had been decided therein that the Customs authorities would take recourse to value the said goods under Rule 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this case could be legally discarded in terms of Section 14(1) and Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, we find that the order is a non-speaking order in this respect. (b) The order also therefore goes against the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Essar Graphics (P) Ltd., Rugmini Ram Raghavan Spinners and CC v. Chem Crown (I) Ltd. (supra) wherein the principle commonly upheld was that the transaction value cannot be rejected for second hand goods firstly without considering the non-applicability of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and secondly by comparing the value of second hand goods with those of other imports etc. as comparison of value of the second hand machine would be odious as no two such machines can ever be identical. ....