Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2008 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 386 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWhether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the respondent that there was misdeclaration since the importer did not furnish the Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificate, when there is no mandatory requirement under the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 to furnish Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificate when a person imports Second-hand Goods? Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the respondent that the appellate had misdeclared the value of the impugned goods [and the misdeclaration of value under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 leading to fine and penalty being imposed under the Act] merely because an importer accepts to pay duty on the enhanced value adopted by the Customs department? Held that:- On a perusal of the order of the authorities below, we are convinced that there was clear misdeclaration of value by the appellant. The appellant has not contested the finding of the Commissioner with respect to the certification by the Chartered Engineer M/s. S.G.S. India Private Limited. It was also not the case of the appellant that they were not aware of the certificate issued by the local port Chartered Engineer as well as the valuation arrived at by them for the machinery in question. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the circular of the Board dated 12-2-2008 does not in any way help the appellant inasmuch as even before the issue of the said circular, a duty was cast on the importer to declare the actual value and production of the valuation report issued by the load port Chartered Engineer. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in confirming the finding with regard to misdeclaration. The Tribunal was also of the view that the fine should be reduced to ₹ 10 lakhs from ₹ 15 lakhs and the penalty from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 1 lakh and on a perusal of the order in extenso, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the said order. Decided against the appellant.
|