TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment accepting the declaration filed by the importer. We are concerned in this appeal some of the goods comprised in the tenth consignment. Examination of this consignment by a committee of three appraising officers and an Assistant Collector found the following items to be new, and not reconditioned or old, as the importer claimed. (i) electronic typewriter, (ii) dictation tape recorders, (iii) shaker (iv) viscometer. 2. The committee also found value of 15 other items was required to be enhanced. Notice to show cause was issued to the importer proposing enhancement of the value, confiscation of these 19 items under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act, and penalty on the importer. The Commissioner passed the order adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore could not be higher than the value of the other machine, which is also manufactured in 1992, which has been accepted by the department. As a matter of fact, the invoice mentioned the same value (of Switzerland franc 499) for each machine. There is thus in other words an admission by the manufacturer that the reconditioning which is stated in 1983 has virtually rendered a new machine. The value that should be accepted of that machine is the declared value that has been accepted for the other machine. This works out to Rs 21.00 lacs. This is the value that should be adopted and not any other value. 5. It is not denied by the counsel that the other items, electronic typewriter and viscometer and shaker are new. That being the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of these items. 6. The difference between the value declared of this consignment, and the value with the department has arrived at, excluding bagging machines, would be around Rs. 42.00 lacs. This represents less than 10% of the declared value of the consignment of Rs 2.50 crores, and around 2% of the total value of the plant of Rs. 20 crores. Having regard to the mode of the valuation that we have noted, and this negligible difference, we do not think confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act, or penalty on this account are justifiable. We are not able to understand the reason for confiscation ordered under clause (d) of Section 111. It is not in dispute that the goods were contained in the list furnished to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
