2015 (11) TMI 1457 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Adjudicating authority rejected the value declared and adopted the value as been allowed at by the chartered engineer s appointed by them - Held that - There is no serious challenge from the main appellant as to the ascertainment of the value by the chartered engineer appointed by the Customs Department it is a case of the appellant that the ascertained value of the cranes by the chartered engineer, appointed by the Department as to the value of the cranes in the year of manufacture even if taken, depreciation at the rate of 70% of the value as ascertained by the chartered engineer, should have been given. Adjudicating authority has summararily discarded this plea of the appellant s that they are eligible for the benefit of depreciation as per as per board s circular recording that it is simple procedure which has been intimated by the board. We do not agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority. In our view, board s circular of 1987 regarding the depreciation is to be followed by the adjudicating authority. We find strong force in the contention of the learner Counsel that entire issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority on various other submissions made by the appellants before him as also the benefit of depreciation as per board s circular. Upholding the claim of the main appellant that benefit of depreciation as per board circular needs to be given, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh keeping all other issues open for both sides. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of imported goods - Correctness of value declared by importer - Application of depreciation on value of identical machine - Benefit of depreciation as per board circular - Adjudicating authority's rejection of declared value - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 20/2012/CAC/CC(I)/APS/Gr.VA dated 31.3.2012, concerning the valuation of imported goods, specifically used crawler cranes. The main appellant, Tiong Woon Project and Contracting (India) Pvt. Ltd., declared the value of the cranes in the bills of entry, which was disputed by customs authorities. An investigation was conducted, and a local chartered engineer was appointed to ascertain the correct value of the imported cranes. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value and adopted the value determined by the chartered engineer. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for the demand of differential customs duty, interest, confiscation of the cranes, redemption fine, and imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was found that the adjudicating authority concluded that the declared value was incorrect and relied on the chartered engineer's assessment. The main appellant argued that even if the engineer's value was correct, depreciation should have been applied as per a board circular. The adjudicating authority dismissed this argument, stating it was a simple procedure. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed and held that the board's circular on depreciation should be followed. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that the issue required reconsideration, including the benefit of depreciation as per the circular. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review, allowing both sides to present their case fully.

The impugned order was overturned, and the appeals were allowed by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review following the principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority was directed to complete the proceedings within four months of receiving a certified copy of the tribunal's order. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.