TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, in our view is found wanting and has not addressed the evidences provided by the importer. The declared values have not been satisfactorily demolished or disproved by the department, as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, there will only be one option left, viz., to accept the declared invoice/imported price as the transaction value and calculate duty liability accordingly. This, in our view is the only way to bring closure to this abssymally long pending dispute. The import/invoice values declared by the appellant as the basis of arriving at the assessable value accepted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/137/2008 - Final Order Nos. 41917/2017 - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count, the department took the view that certificates issued by the said Chartered Engineer are false and fabricated. The department further adopted the value of the Konica Minilab System in 1989 as USD 59000 and after extending the depreciation of 54% and freight, insurance charges, the assessable value of those goods was worked out to ₹ 9,90,498/-, allegedly resulting in evasion of customs duty to the tune of ₹ 6,17,230/-. In adjudication, the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 21.02.1997 ordered that the assessable value of the imported machinery be fixed at ₹ 9,90,498/- confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, however gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 2.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- under Section 112 A of the Act. Hence the matter is once again before this forum as appeal C/137/2008 dated 14.08.2017. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on behalf of the appellant Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj reiterated the grounds of appeal and also made oral submissions which can be broadly summarized as under:- i) Customs Valuation Rules 3 4 clearly lay down that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value and also that if the value cannot be so determined, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially to Rule 5 to Rule 8 of the Rules. However, the adjudicating authority after rejecting the transaction value has switched over to Rule 8 on the same ground that the appellant did not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note of the invoice which shows the price of the goods as USD 29100 and passed an order of enhancement of value on this basis. Fixation of value on a new finding by the Commissioner when the same was not discussed nor relied upon by the Cestat in its order cannot be relied upon by the adjudicating authority especially since the appellant was not given opportunity of verifying the same not to comment on the same. Evidence relied upon by the Commissioner in the impugned order for fixing the value at ₹ 4,08,820/- is not acceptable since earlier CESTAT in its Final order dated 07.05.1997 had fixed the value on same evidences which was set aside by the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 25.07.2005. 3. On the other hand on behalf of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no longer form a basis since they have been set aside by the High Court. 7. Pursuant to the directions of the order of the High Court it emerges that appellants had produced details of Bills of Entry 22651 dated 6.9.1996 on identical goods cleared at Bangalore and Bill of Entry No. 422597 dated 3.9.2002 cleared through Chennai Customs House for identical goods. Based on this import data, the appellants contended vide their written submissions dated 4.11.2006 that the said goods had been cleared in these Customs Houses, for more or less the same value declared by them. However, the adjudicating authority, in para-17 of his order has dismissed these evidences on the grounds that the impugned goods were imported in 1996 whereas the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the orders of the High Court, there will be no other option and further since the value declared by the importer has not been disproved in any other manner by the department, the same will then necessarily have to be accepted as the transaction value of the goods. The import has been made in the year 1996 and this dispute has been festering for over two decades. In fact this is the second time that the matter has been come up to the Tribunal. In spite of the clear and cogent directions of the Hon ble High Court, the denovo adjudication, in our view is found wanting and has not addressed the evidences provided by the importer. Taking all these factors into consideration and especially considering that the declared values have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
