2006 (8) TMI 458 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of mistake apparent from the record in the final order.
2. Dispute over the use of the term "machines" instead of "scrap" in the order.
3. Rejection of Chartered Engineer's certificate and direction for obtaining a fresh certificate.
4. Requirement for the Chartered Engineer to inspect complete machines and provide relevant information.
5. Dismissal of the appellants' claim of patently erroneous final order.

Analysis:

1. The appellants claimed a mistake apparent from the record in the final order, specifically regarding the description of the goods as "machines" instead of "scrap." The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to revalue the goods based on a fresh certificate from a competent Chartered Engineer. The dispute centered around whether the imported goods were misdeclared and should have been referred to as "scrap" instead of "machines."

2. The Tribunal did not accept the Chartered Engineer's certificate considered by the Commissioner due to identified infirmities. Consequently, the Commissioner was instructed to obtain a new certificate with complete details of the machines for accurate assessment. The appellants did not contest this aspect of the order, indicating their acceptance of the need for a proper valuation based on a reliable certificate.

3. The Tribunal clarified that the Chartered Engineer's role was to inspect complete machines and provide relevant information related to the machines' characteristics, not scrap. It was emphasized that the valuation should be based on the inspection of the machines and the subsequent report by the Chartered Engineer. The appellants' contention that the final order was erroneous was dismissed based on these reasons.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the Chartered Engineer's inspection was crucial for determining the year of manufacture, value in original condition, and other pertinent details of the imported machines. The requirement for a fresh valuation based on the Chartered Engineer's report was reiterated to ensure accurate assessment and proper adjudication of the case.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim of a patently erroneous final order, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough inspection of the imported machines by a Chartered Engineer and subsequent valuation based on the provided information. The application was consequently dismissed, reaffirming the importance of accurate valuation in customs matters.