Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 201 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Undervaluation - Import of old and used CRT monitors - requirement of licence under foreign trade policy 2004-2009 - Difference of opinion - Majority order - Held that:- There is no dispute that the import of the second hand capital goods required an import license and this import is without any import licence and, thus, in violation of EXIM policy. The goods, therefore, have been correctly confiscated under section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 - appellant have placed on record a detailed calculation regarding the landed cost of the imported goods, their sale price and margin of profit according to which the margin of profit after taking into account the detention charges would be 2.5% of the value. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the redemption fine of 10% of the value and penalty of 5% of the value as ordered by Hon'ble Member( Judicial) would be correct. Whether declared transaction value of Rs . 5,81,005/-is acceptable or whether the same should be enhances to Rs . 6,91,711/-based on the Chartered Engineer's report - Held that:- goods imported are of assorted brands and of different country origin and year of manufacture of goods is from 1999-2004. The goods thus are 4 to 8 year old and may be even obsolete models. There is no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical goods imported from the same suppliers at higher price. There is also no evidence placed on record to indicate that the appellant had paid any amount over and above the declared invoice value to the foreign suppliers. It is also not the allegation of the department that any of the conditions mentioned In proviso to Rule 3(2) of the customs valuation rule 2007 are present. In this situation merely on the basis of Chartered Engineer's report, which is based on the enquiry conducted behind the appellant's back and which had not even been supplied to the appellant, the declared transaction value cannot be rejected. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|