2008 (6) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of value of imported second-hand photocopier machines - year of manufacture is not available on the goods - therefore, comparison of goods with the goods imported at other ports at higher value is not sustainable enhancement of value set aside in view of HC decision in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd., confiscation on ground that import of second-hand capital goods is restricted, is justified as enhancement of value is set aside, redemption fine and penalty are reduced

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhanced value of imported photocopier machines and components
2. Confiscation of goods as restricted items
3. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellants

Analysis:
1. Enhanced Value of Imported Goods:
The appellants challenged the impugned order that enhanced the value of imported photocopier machines and components. They argued that the goods were second-hand and the declared transaction value was rejected without evidence. The examiner and appraiser provided varying opinions on the value of the goods. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value based on imports at other ports. The Revenue contended that the appellants cannot challenge the enhancement as they accepted it during import. However, the tribunal found that since the year of manufacture was not available, the enhancement based on higher value imports was unsustainable. The onus was on the Revenue to prove the fair value of the goods, which was not done. Therefore, the enhancement of value was set aside.

2. Confiscation of Goods:
The issue of confiscation arose as the goods were considered restricted items. The Revenue argued that the goods were liable for confiscation as they were not freely importable capital goods. The tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that similar goods were not liable for confiscation. However, the Hon'ble High Court reversed this decision, stating that second-hand photocopiers were not freely importable as capital goods. Based on this decision, the tribunal found no error in holding the goods liable for confiscation.

3. Acceptance of Enhanced Value:
The Revenue contended that the appellants accepted the enhanced value during import, thus forfeiting the right to challenge it. However, the tribunal noted that the appellants had informed the Revenue about detention charges and demurrage, which forced them to accept the decision. The tribunal distinguished this case from previous decisions where concessions were made. Since the year of manufacture was not available for the goods, comparing them with higher value imports was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the order regarding the enhancement of value, leading to a reduction in redemption fine and penalty.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the enhancement of value, reduced the redemption fine and penalty, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.