9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Rules on the basis of the price of similar new machines by their German manufacturer with 70% depreciation on usage etc. A differential duty of Rs. 12,41,985/- has been confirmed, but no fine or penalty imposed. 2. The importer has also produced two more certificates from local experts on values declared - one from a chartered engineer and the other from an engineering college faculty. They argue that as their declared transaction value has neither been rejected on basis of contemporaneous imports of like goods nor on relationship or fraud, therefore, Rule 4 and not Rule 8 ibid should be applied. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri V. Ramanujam for appellants. Reiterating grounds of appeal, he cited the following decisions :- (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hand machinery cannot be rejected without proving contemporaneous import to the contrary of a like kind of goods. This has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court as they dismissed Revenue's SLP as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A-101. This is now good law. 7. In a similar vein, Hon'ble Tribunal in 1996 (67) E.L.T. 319 in the case of Indo Swiss Time Ltd., has held that even for second hand machinery imports, Invoice Price cannot be rejected on mere suspicion. 8. In the case of CC v. Nippon Bearings reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1997 (69) ECR 255 (S.C.), Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the decision that if invoice value to be disputed, then Department should show contemporaneous imports. However, in this case facts covered impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent facts, we find that the impugned Order-in-Original needs to be set aside because :- (i) No instance of contemporaneous imports of like goods has been cited therein, nor it is alleged that fraud is involved in the transaction; (ii) The transaction value of the invoice, duly supported by Chartered Engineer's Certificates (foreign & local), stands rejected merely on these certificates not having details of basis of valuation; and (iii) that after rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4 wrongly on this basis, the order straight-away proceeds to Rule 8, without even a word on why the other intervening rules do not apply. 13. We find that unless Rule 4 is clearly held as not applicable due to either fraud etc or c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
