9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Age of the imported machine. 2. Valuation of the imported goods. 3. Alleged misdeclaration of description or values. Detailed Analysis: 1. Age of the Imported Machine: The Customs Authorities objected to the clearance of the Adast Dominant 4 color offset press, alleging it was more than 10 years old. The Commissioner of Customs determined the machine's manufacture year as 1991 based on the control panel's marking and the split of Czechoslovakia. However, the appellant contested this, arguing that the control panel is an accessory and not part of the offset press itself. They pointed out that the year marked on accessories does not accurately indicate the year of manufacture of the main machine. Additionally, the appellant clarified that the split of Czechoslovakia occurred in 1993, not 1991, and that the machine was manufactured in Slovakia, not the Czech Republic. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's conclusions erroneous and unsupported by sound evidence, thus ruling that the finding regarding the machine's age and the need for an import license could not be upheld. 2. Valuation of the Imported Goods: The Commissioner rejected the declared transaction value and recalculated the machine's value based on a 1993 price and depreciation method. The appellant argued that the transaction value should be accepted as per Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. They emphasized that the transaction was a commercial purchase at a price agreed upon by both parties, supported by a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence suggesting the transaction was for any consideration other than the invoice price. It highlighted that market conditions, such as those following the 9/11 attacks, could lead to lower prices for second-hand goods. The Tribunal ruled that the transaction value should constitute the assessable value, and the method adopted by the Commissioner was impermissible and unsupported by law. 3. Alleged Misdeclaration of Description or Values: The appellant contended that there was no misdeclaration of the goods' description or values, as all declarations were based on the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and the invoice. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence presented by the revenue to dispute the appellant's declarations. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is evidence of misdeclaration or manipulation, which was not present in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal found the findings in the impugned order unsustainable. The conflicting findings on the machine's age and valuation were unsupported by sound evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the transaction value should be the assessable value, and there was no legal basis for discarding it. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|
