TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 84/05-Cus., dated 20-10-2005 had partly remanded the matter, which is subject matter of Appeal No. 417/05. After de novo, the matter came up again before the Commissioner (A) who decided the matter by Order-in-Appeal No. 3/2006-Cus., dated 20-1-2006 which is subject matter of Appeal No. C/29/06. 2. The issue pertains to enhancement of value of the imported second-hand used printers. The said printers were freely importable and do not require Licence. It is only the question of valuation which is under challenge. The Chartered Engineers certificate was not accepted by the department and the Revenue enhanced the value based on the valuation available in internet, which is under challenge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the transaction value is required to be accepted when there is no proof of any sum having been sent by the appellants through any other source. They have produced the proof of transfer through bank which should be accepted as the correct value. (iv) He also contended that minor discrepancies in the quantity of goods cannot be a ground for discarding the transaction value declared by the importer as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. International Trade and Affairs v. CC, Hyderabad reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 584 (Tri.-Bang.). (v) He also relied on a number of Orders-in-Appeals of the same Commissioner who has upheld the transaction value: 2/05-Cus., dated 31-1-2005; 3/05-Cus., dated 31-1-2005; and 4/05-Cus., dated 31-1-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CC, Hyderabad vide Final Order Nos. 231 and 232/2005, dated 14-2-2005 passed in Appeal Nos. C/31/2003 and C/39/2003 and Final Orders No. 957 and 958/2005, dated 20-6-2005 passed in Appeal Nos. C/241/02 and C/236/04 and also in the case of Rex Printing Press, Bangalore v. CC, Kolkata vide Final Order No. 1980/04, dated 15-12-2004 passed in Appeal No. C/200/04 [2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (Tribunal)]. (x) He also submits that the internet price is not reliable and it is not the basis for rejecting the declared transaction value. He relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Aggarwal Distributors (P) Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 49 (T) which has been confirmed by the Apex Court reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milar cases at 10% of the transaction value and penalty at 5% of the value as held in the case of M/s. Big Apple Computer v. CC, Hyderabad vide Final Orders No. 957 and 958/2005, dated 20-6-2005. In view of this judgment, we direct the authorities to release the goods on payment of redemption fine at 10% of the transaction value and penalty also at the rate of 5% of the transaction value. The impugned orders are modified inasmuch as the enhancement of transaction value is set aside. The confiscation is upheld however granting redemption fine of 10% of transaction value and penalty of 5% of transaction value. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
