TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs were, however, allowed to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Act. The confiscation was on the ground that the appellants had mis-declared the model and year of imported machine and the value of US $ 7500 declared in the invoice was a mis-declared lower price, the correct price being US $ 40000. The import was under invoice dated July 18, 2001 and the goods had been declared in the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer manufactured in 1993. The year of manufacture was significant inasmuch as import of more than 10 years old machinery was not permissible under the Import Policy for the relevant period. 2. The impugned order fixed the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the report of Chartered Engineer of Korea who had certified the machine as of 1993 manufacture. 3. In the present appeal, the appellants have contended that the actual price of the machine was as declared in the invoice and that the model number as entered in the certificate of the Chartered Engineer is also 1993. It is also re-iterated that the purchase was made through negotiations at an exhibition of machinery at Delhi and the entire proceedings were illegal. The learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that apart from the fact that the statements in question had been recorded under coercer as dictated to by the investigating officers, the method of valuation adopted by the customs authorities was entirely faulty. According to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue fixed for its assessment, the appellants wrote to the Commissioner of Customs on 29-10-2001 that the documents furnished for the import of the goods were correct and reliable and the foreign supplier had intimated that more such machines are available for sale to anyone willing to buy them at the same price. This showed the innocence of the appellants. They had, accordingly, sought release of the goods on payment of duty on the declared value. Subsequently, on 13-2-2002, the importer again wrote to the Commissioner restating the same facts and informing that they are not in a position to clear the goods on payment of duty, fine and penalty. Therefore, they surrendered the goods and requested that the machine may be sold by public auctio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....machine itself did not indicate any year of manufacture. The appellants' contention is that the certificate of the Chartered Engineer who is an independent party should be accepted. A perusal of the "CTC Used Equipment Data Base" shows that this data base mentions two entries of BESR-H-UG 1990 and BESRE UG 1990. Thus, the records collected during investigation itself is found to show that there were BESR series later than 1989, at least that sellers are supplying BESR series later than 1989. The machine imported by the appellant has been certified as manufactured in 1993 by the Chartered Engineer from the country of supply (Korea). The information relied on by the adjudicating authority has been purportedly obtained by the Indian Agent from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion about sale of second hand machines from Korea to India. Further, even though the impugned order starts off with the statement that "An intelligence was received by DRI that more than 10 years old second hand embroidery machines of Barudan and Tajima Brand are being imported by grossly under valuing them through Mumbai and Nhava Sheva ports", the impugned order furnishes no data about the import of second hand embroidery machines at any port in India, let alone Mumbai and Nhava Sheva Ports. A credible challenge to transaction value declared in import documents, normally arises from import prices of contemporaneous imports of comparables goods. The Customs Valuation rules also specifically stipulate comparable value of identical goods and....