TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the Chartered Engineer's report - Held that:- goods imported are of assorted brands and of different country origin and year of manufacture of goods is from 1999-2004. The goods thus are 4 to 8 year old and may be even obsolete models. There is no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical goods imported from the same suppliers at higher price. There is also no evidence placed on record to indicate that the appellant had paid any amount over and above the declared invoice value to the foreign suppliers. It is also not the allegation of the department that any of the conditions mentioned In proviso to Rule 3(2) of the customs valuation rule 2007 are present. In this situation merely on the basis of Chartered Engineer's report, which is based on the enquiry conducted behind the appellant's back and which had not even been supplied to the appellant, the declared transaction value cannot be rejected. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Customs Appeal No. C /720/2008-Cus - Final Order No. C/A/50572/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 18-2-2015 - Archana Wadhwa , Member (J),Manmohan Singh, Member (T) And B S V Murthy,J. For the Appellant : Shri S Kapoor , Adv. For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Judicial) and Member (Technical), the following point of difference was referred to the undersigned for decision. ''Whether the appeal has to be rejected by upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has enhanced the assessable value of the imported goods and has confiscated the goods with redemption fine of Rs . One Lakh and has imposed penalty of Rs . 2 Lakhs, as held by Member (Technical). OR The appeal has to be allowed in respect of assessable value, by accepting the transaction value as correct value of the imported goods and the redemption fine and penalty has to be reduced to 10% and 5% of the declared value, as held by Member (Judicial). 20. Heard both the sides in respect of the point of difference. 21. Shri Saurav Kapoor , Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that goods are of assorted brand and assorted country of origin and the year of manufacture is from 1999 to 2004, that the goods are old and used and also obsolete, that in view of these circumstances, the declared value of ₹ 5 ,81,005 /-CIF is correct, that the declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the Chartered Engineer& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the declared transaction value of Rs . 5,81,005/-is false, that no evidence has been produced by the department to show, that the appellant had paid any amount over and above the invoice value to the foreign suppliers or that there were contemporaneous imports of identical goods from the same suppliers at much higher prices, that the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Venkatesh Enterprises vs. C.C. Chennai reported in 2005 (192) ELT 818 has held that merely on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's-report the declared transaction value of the Second hand machinery cannot be rejected and that in view of the above submissions, it is the order recorded by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) which is correct. 22. Shri B.B . Sharma Ld. Departmental representative, defended the impugned order supporting the order recorded by Member (Technical) and pleaded that the appellant at the time of import did not contest the loading of the transaction value, that though the appellant had imported old and used computers monitors, the goods were not accompanied by Chartered Engineer's certificate regarding their value, that it is for this reason only that the customs officers had to get the goods exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the value and penalty to 5% of the value. It is seen that the appellant have placed on record a detailed calculation regarding the landed cost of the imported goods, their sale price and margin of profit according to which the margin of profit after taking into account the detention charges would be 2.5% of the value. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the redemption fine of 10% of the value and penalty of 5% of the value as ordered by Hon'ble Member( Judicial) would be correct. 24. As regards the question as to whether declared transaction value of Rs . 5,81,005/-is acceptable or whether the same should be enhances to Rs . 6,91,711/-based on the Chartered Engineer's report, I find that the. goods imported are of assorted brands and of different country origin and year of manufacture of goods is from 1999-2004. The goods thus are 4 to 8 year old and may be even obsolete models. There is no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical goods imported from the same suppliers at higher price. There is also no evidence placed on record to indicate that the appellant had paid any amount over and above the declared invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
