2005 (2) TMI 403 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Requirement of import license for Photocopier machines.
2. Valuation of imported Photocopier machines.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case pertains to the requirement of an import license for Photocopier machines. The appellants imported old and used Photocopiers of various brands and declared the value based on supplier's invoice. The authorities rejected the invoice value and valued the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules by applying a 70% depreciation on the machine's value during the year of manufacture. The appellants challenged this valuation, arguing that Photocopier machines are capital goods permissible for import under the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including the case of BE Office Automation Pvt. Ltd., and held that the Circular issued by the DGFT does not prevail over the provisions of the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and fine imposed by the authorities, concluding that the item does not require a license for import based on the judgments cited.

2. The second issue concerns the valuation of the imported Photocopier machines. The appellants contended that the transaction value should be accepted in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import. They relied on several judgments, including the case of Sounds-N-Images v. CC, where the burden of proving undervaluation was placed on the Revenue. The Tribunal also considered the case of Sai Impex v. CC, where it was held that transaction value should be accepted in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods. Additionally, the Apex Court's decision in Tolin Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. v. CC emphasized accepting transaction value even for second-hand machinery imports. The Tribunal applied these judgments and ruled that the rejection of the transaction value by the authorities was incorrect. They set aside the impugned order, citing the lack of evidence of contemporaneous import and aligning with the Apex Court's stance on valuation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, highlighting the importance of accepting transaction value in the absence of contrary evidence.