TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t goods, imported without licence, appeared to be-1 liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act r/w Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and consequently the importers were found to be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The officers of Customs at the Docks carried out 100% examination of the goods in the presence of empanelled Chartered Engineers viz. M/s. Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Chennai and found the goods to be used and old photocopiers as declared in the respective Bills of Entry and connected import documents. The Chartered Engineers appraised the value of the goods, which was found to be much higher than what had been declared by the importers. When the Customs authorities proposed enhancement of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of duty, besides confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty, the importers (party-appellants) waived show-cause notice but requested for opportunity of being heard. Given this opportunity, they made written submissions before the Commissioner requesting inter alia for acceptance of the declared value of the goods as ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Business Machine 30,24,323/- 37,58,404/- 6,39,000 1,88,000 C/220/06 7. Sri Venkatesh Enterprises 17,16,189/- 21,22,022/- 3,60,000 1,00,000 C/215/06 8. Shivam Enterprises 17,91,936/- 23,75,460/- 4,04,000 1,19,000 C/221/06 9. Rajvani Graphics Trade 21,16,332/- 25,99,752/- 4,42,000 1,30,000 C/219/06 In the cases of M/s. Sri Balaji Office Equipment, M/s. S S International and M/s. G.S. Enterprises, the Revenue has a grievance that adequate redemption fine and penalty were not imposed by the adjudicating authority. Appeal No. C/454, 356 and 447/2006 are by the Revenue for enhancement of fine and penalty. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that there is no valid challenge in the importers appeals against confiscation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The reasons stated by the Commissioner for rejecting the declared value are that (a) the goods were imported by a trader and not a manufacturer; (b) the goods, being used/secondhand, cannot be said to have been imported under fully competitive conditions due to its maintenance, upkeeping etc.; (c) importer did not produce any evidence to substantiate the declared value; and (d) independent/approved Chartered Engineer in India appraised the value of the goods at US $ 48,855 (C F) as against the declared value of US $ 39,550 after inspecting the goods. We find that none of these reasons constitutes any of the exceptions laid down under the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Therefore, as rightly submitted by Id. counsel, rejection of the transaction value is against the mandate of law embodied in the judgments of the apex court. In the case of Eicher Tractors (supra), the value of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act by the apex court after noting that none of the exceptions under Rule 4(2) was found to exist in that case. Their lordships applied the same ruling to a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the subject goods including market condition in India for such goods . We have found nothing in the local Chartered Engineer's report indicating that he took the Indian market conditions into account. Whatever that be it is not the Revenue s case that any amount higher than the declared value of the goods was paid by the importer to the overseas supplier in any of these cases or that the value of the goods was influenced by any consideration extraneous to the normal practice of international trade and commerce. The invoiced price of the goods was declared by the importer before the Indian Customs authorities and the same was supported by the load port Chartered Engineer s certificate also. These circumstances would go to support the transaction value having to be adopted as the basis for assessment of the goods to duties of customs. For rejecting this value, it was incumbent on the Commissioner to establish that any of the exceptional circumstances mentioned under the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 existed in the case. Learned Commissioner has not established any in the impugned orders. Therefore, as we have held in the case of Omex Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52,000 5. C/159/06 Competent Business Machine 35,45,210/- 5,31,000 1,77,000 6. C/220/06 Competent Business Machine 30,24,323/- 4,50,000 1,50,000 7. C/215/06 Sri Venkatesh Enterprises 17,16,189/- 2,55,000 85,000 8. C/221/06 Shivam Enterprises 17,91,936/- 2,60,000 85,000 9. C/2l9/06 Rajvani Graphics Trade 21,16,332/- 3,15,000 1,00,000 Accordingly, we have allowed the appeals filed by the party-appellants to the extent of accepting the declared value of the goods and, in most of the cases, reducing the quanta of fine and penalty. We have also allowed the Revenue s appeals to the extent of increasing the quanta of redemption fine and penalty on M/s. S S International and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
