TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not second hand as claimed by the appellant. Determination of the value of the goods - Held that:- The value adopted for assessment straw applicator has not been challenged and it is only the finding on the condition that has been contested along with the judgement by which bent foil treator has been re-assessed. With our finding of goods not being second hand , the absence of challenge to the enhanced value of straw applicator renders a finality to the assessment. The impugned order has relied upon on import whose applicability has not been controverted with acceptable evidence to the contrary - Insofar as bent foil treator is concerned, the enhancement suffers from incompatibility with the Customs Valuation (Determinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal authority had re-determined the assessable value of straw applicator as ₹ 55,02,443/- under rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and to ₹ 4,00,000/- for bent foil treator under rule 9 of the said Rules. The goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 but permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 14,75,610/- and penalty of ₹ 5,90,244/- was imposed on the importer under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they had imported second hand goods and that the certificate of the chartered engineer is contradictory in its ascertainment of the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the goods are not second hand as claimed by the appellant. 5. The next issue that comes up is the determination of the value of the goods. We observe that the value adopted for assessment straw applicator has not been challenged and it is only the finding on the condition that has been contested along with the judgement by which bent foil treator has been re-assessed. With our finding of goods not being second hand , the absence of challenge to the enhanced value of straw applicator renders a finality to the assessment. The impugned order has relied upon on import whose applicability has not been controverted with acceptable evidence to the contrary. 6. Insofar as bent foil treator is concerned, the enhancement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (vii) arbitrary or fictitious values. The proportionate application of the enhancement adopted for an entirely different goods from a different context does not fulfil these prescriptions. The enhancement of value of bent foil treator , therefore, lacks sanctity of law. 7. We find that the valuation adopted for straw applicator 30 alone survives. We also find that the adoption of enhanced value is based on an examination report of the customs officials. There is nothing on record to evidence that there has been a deliberate misdeclaration on the part of the importer and, even if the consequence of such mis-declaration may have benefitted them, that does not provide sufficient grounds to invoke section 111(m) of Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
