2009 (3) TMI 732 - AT - Customs

Photocopier - Used photocopier - Restricted goods - Held that - The declared value has been rejected on a reasonable doubt that the value was very low compared to the value given by the local Chartered Engineer. The contemporaneous price made available by the Directorate of Valuation has been adopted. There is no evidence that the importers paid any money in excess to the supplier or to the effect that they had purposely misdeclared the value of the goods in order to evade payment of duty. The Revenue has not established any of the circumstances contemplated in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 so as to reject the transaction value - we set aside the enhancement of the value of the goods imported as not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Free importability of old and used photocopiers
2. Valuation of imported goods

Issue 1: Free Importability of Old and Used Photocopiers
The appellants imported old and used photocopiers, which were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 for import without a specific license. The value of the goods was enhanced, and penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellants contended that the goods were freely importable, citing a judgment by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Atul Commodity Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal accepted this contention, referring to the Apex Court's decision that import of old and used photocopiers was not restricted before 19-10-05. The Tribunal emphasized that the import of such goods was restricted only after 19-10-05, as per Notification No. 31. The Tribunal set aside the finding of contravention of Section 111(d) of the Act based on this decision.

Issue 2: Valuation of Imported Goods
Regarding the contravention of Section 111(m) for misdeclaration of value, the Tribunal rejected the declared value due to doubts about its accuracy compared to the value provided by a local Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal adopted the contemporaneous price from the Directorate of Valuation. However, there was no evidence that the importers paid excess money to the supplier or intentionally misdeclared the value to evade duty. The Revenue failed to establish circumstances to reject the transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC Mumbai, to support its decision. The Tribunal set aside the enhancement of the imported goods' value as unsustainable based on the lack of evidence and legal principles.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they did not contravene the provisions of Section 111(d) or (m) of the Customs Act. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and the need for substantial evidence to support decisions related to the importation and valuation of goods.