2004 (11) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on Chartered Engineer's certificate.
2. Confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration and violation of Import Trade Control Order.
3. Assessment of redemption fine and penalty.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order regarding the import of second-hand main frame parts of photocopiers. The appellant declared the value of the consignment at $85,225 (C & F), which was later enhanced to $121,015 (C & F) based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The goods were confiscated due to misdeclaration and violation of the Exim Policy. The appellant argued that the Chartered Engineer did not provide a basis for the value enhancement, stating that the goods were old and used main frame assemblies, not complete photocopy machines. The Revenue relied on the certificate for valuation. The Tribunal found that the imported goods were indeed old and used main frame assemblies, not complete photocopiers, and that the value enhancement was not sustainable as the transaction value was not challenged. The enhancement was set aside, and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs, with the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upheld.

Confiscation of Goods:
The appellant did not contest the confiscation of goods due to the violation of the Import Trade Control Order and misdeclaration of quantity. The Tribunal acknowledged this and reduced the redemption fine while upholding the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the appellants entitled to any consequential relief as per the law.

Assessment of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs and upheld the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was disposed of without interference on the amount of penalty, with the appellants eligible for any consequential relief in accordance with the law. The cross-objection was also disposed of as indicated in the judgment.