Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIUndervaluation - enhancement of valuation - mis-declaration - The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the respondent. He observed that the respondent was not put to notice before enhancement and no opportunity was given to them. He also sought a report from the concerned Deputy Commissioner who agreed that Chartered Engineer’s report/certificate was not given to the importer. Held that:- In any case, we find that the lower authorities while enhancing the value of the machine has solely relied upon Indian Chartered Engineer’s certificate. For enhancement of value, Revenue is first expected to discard the transaction value or at least reflect upon some evidence to cast doubt in respect of the same. Revenue in their memo of appeal is silent about the supplier’s certificate indicating that the word “C” refers to third generation model of machine and not to computerised machine. In any case, the expression “console” stands declared by the respondent in their bill of entry. They have adopted the same declaration as is available in the invoices of the foreign supplier and the other relevant documents like bill of lading etc. As such no mis-declaration charge can be pressed against the respondent. Otherwise also we find that there is no reference to any evidence on record to create a doubt about transaction value or to believe the certificate given by the foreign supplier. In this scenario, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned in TOLIN RUBBERS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [2003 (11) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] or of the Tribunal IQUIRA INC Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2004 (5) TMI 141 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. - Decided against the revenue.
|