TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IM 2002-07 read with para 3.3 of the Handbook of Procedures of Vol-I. The importers have violated the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The goods are therefore liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the CA 1962 - penalty upheld - the quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/488/2006 - 40937/2017 - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The present appeal is against the OIO No.5408/2006 dt. 24.8.2006. 2. Appellant imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld. D.R. 3. The learned Advocate argued that customs department had no valid reason for disregarding the overseas Chartered Engineer certificate produced at the time of import. The genuineness of the certificate has not been doubted or disapproved. The valuation of goods by the local Chartered Engineer has been done arbitrarily without even inspecting the imported goods. He further submitted that the load port Chartered Engineer gives the year of make of the machines, the value of goods at the time of manufacture as well as value at the time of export. The import invoice as well as Chartered Engineer certificate bears the stamp of City Union Bank Ltd. evidencing that only the invoice amount has been pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has assessed the value of the goods to be much higher than the declared value. The grievance of the appellant is that custom authorities have disregarded the load port Chartered Engineer certificate without valid reasons to reject the same. There is nothing on record to doubt or disapprove the load port Chartered Engineer. The main reason for disregarding such certificate as indicated by the adjudicating authority is that the year of manufacture has been certified as 1983 whereas it was found on examination by the local Chartered Engineer as 1989. However, neither accompanying invoices nor any other documents submitted by the importer evidences such year of manufacture of machines. 6. After perusal of the certificate given by the local ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
