9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the declared value of imported goods. Allegation by the Revenue that the imported goods are second-hand in nature due to their manufacturing year and procurement by the supplier. Interpretation of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 regarding import of second-hand goods without a specific import license. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 10-6-2003 regarding the declared value of imported goods, 'Polypropylene Non-Oven Sheets in Rolls'. The adjudicating authority had enhanced the declared value from 0.40 US $ per Kg to 1.20 US $ per Kg, which was contested by the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the comparison made by the adjudicating authority was not appropriate as it was not with reference to similar goods. The importer argued that the goods were of inferior quality, manufactured in 1988-89, and regularly imported from the same supplier since 1994, justifying the declared value. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the importer. In the present appeal, the Revenue introduced a new ground challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) finding, alleging that the goods were second-hand due to their manufacturing year and procurement by the supplier in 1989. The Revenue contended that as per the Exim Policy 1997-2002, import of second-hand goods required a specific import license, which was not obtained in this case. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the mere manufacturing year of 1988-89 did not automatically classify the goods as second-hand. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'second-hand goods' had a specific meaning and not all old goods qualified as second-hand. Therefore, the Revenue's new contention lacked merit and was baseless. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for filing a frivolous appeal that not only harassed the assessee but also wasted the Tribunal's time. The Tribunal emphasized that the ground raised by the Revenue regarding the second-hand nature of the goods was without any merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the importer.
|
