TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 10 years old in terms of Import Trade Control Regulations in EXIM 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 Customs Act, 1962 - redemption fine reduced to ₹ 60,000/- - penalty u/s 112 (a) reduced to ₹ 30,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/151/2007, C/280/2007 (By dept) & C/CO/40974/2016 - 40999-41000/2017 - Dated:- 16-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S.Murugappan, Advocate For the Assessee Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f adjudication, learned Commissioner ordered for enhancement of value of the imported goods in terms of local Chartered Engineer's opinion at US$ 78500 and demanded differential duty of ₹ 82,805/-. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 3.50 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal has been filed. Revenue is also in appeal against the same impugned OIO, seeking for higher assessable value as determined by M/s.V Line Engineers and accordingly demand higher differential duty. 2. With the above back ground, we heard Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant as well as Shri B. Balamurugan, Ld. D.R. 3. The learned Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by D.G.F.T. The certificate also suffers from several deficiencies. Hence it has been rightly disregarded by the adjudicating authority. He further argued that the valuation of imported goods is required to be determined by customs authorities on the basis of various factors and not only on the basis of amount paid to the exporter. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Bill of Entry has been filed for clearance of the imported used goods along with a Chartered Engineer certificate from the load port, dt. 06.01.2003. The same has been disregarded by the customs authorities and the value has been got certified by a local Chartered Engineer who has assessed the value of the goods to be much higher than the declared value. The gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n other experts. We note that there is no other sufficient independent reason for such rejection. Such rejection has been held as not a valid basis for rejection of Chartered Engineer certificate in the case of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills (supra). The said decision has also been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (182) ELT A92 (SC), hence is binding on this Bench. By following the said decision, it is to be held that reassessment value on the basis of local Chartered Engineer certificate is not valid. Consequently, the declared value backed by the Chartered Engineer certificate from the originator is to be accepted. 7. Admittedly, the imported goods are more than 10 years old in terms of Import Trade Control Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
