2009 (8) TMI 1049 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are undervaluation of imported goods, re-determination of value by a Chartered Engineer, confiscation of goods for mis-declaration, redemption fine, penalty imposition, and violation of natural justice.

Undervaluation of imported goods:
The appellants imported machines which were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence due to undervaluation. An independent Chartered Engineer re-determined the value of the goods after initial valuation, citing reasons such as machinery being inside the container during the first examination and being used for a lesser number of years.

Confiscation and redemption of goods:
The adjudicating Commissioner re-determined the value of the goods and confiscated them for mis-declaration, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The appellants admitted to paying the re-determined value partly through banking channels and partly directly to the supplier's representative.

Challenge to re-determination of value:
The appellant challenged the re-determination of value, arguing for a reduction based on legal precedents and principles of natural justice. The appellant cited a Supreme Court case and a Board's Circular to support the argument against reliance on the Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Legal principles and Circulars:
The judgment referred to legal principles regarding the valuation of second-hand machinery and Circulars issued by the Board. The Circulars emphasized the rejection of transaction value in certain cases and outlined the process for re-determining the value based on depreciation methods.

Decision and reasoning:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal upheld the valuation adopted by the adjudicating Commissioner based on the Chartered Engineer's certification. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for further depreciation based on the Board's Circular, as the certificate was from an Indian Chartered Engineer and did not provide the necessary details for additional depreciation.

Penalty and fine:
The Tribunal found the redemption fine to be reasonable compared to the re-determined value of the machinery. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate considering the value of the goods and the appellants' previous penalization under Customs law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order on the specified date.