2017 (6) TMI 744 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - printer processor - rejection of Foreign Chartered Engineer s Certificate - Held that - the model of the goods on which the department has placed reliance to arrive at the assessable value is QSS1702 V and not QSS1702, which is the model that has been imported by the appellants. Therefore, the enhancement done on the basis of this letter does not find favor with us. The appellant has produced enough materials to establish the value declared by him is right and proper. Further, his request to conduct inspection by a local Chartered Engineer was not acceded to by the department. From the totality of facts, we therefore, are of the considered view that the rejection of the declared value is without basis. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in declared value of imported goods.
2. Consideration of foreign Chartered Engineer's Certificate.
3. Comparison of imported goods with goods imported by another entity.
4. Rejection of value based on maintenance of secondhand goods.
5. Rejection of local Chartered Engineer's inspection request.
6. Reliance on Noritsu's letter for assessing value.
7. Difference in models of imported goods.
8. Rejection of appellant's declared value.
9. Request for local Chartered Engineer's inspection not granted.

Issue 1: Discrepancy in declared value of imported goods
The case involved the import of second-hand re-conditioned equipment, where the declared value was contested by the revenue authorities. The original authority enhanced the value after an enquiry, leading to subsequent appeals.

Issue 2: Consideration of foreign Chartered Engineer's Certificate
The appellant presented a foreign Chartered Engineer's Certificate certifying the value of the goods, which was rejected by authorities due to discrepancies in dates. The appellant argued that the certificate was based on proforma invoices, but the rejection was upheld.

Issue 3: Comparison of imported goods with goods imported by another entity
The Tribunal directed consideration of goods imported by another entity at a lower value, but the original authority refused to compare secondhand goods due to potential maintenance differences affecting value assessment.

Issue 4: Rejection of value based on maintenance of secondhand goods
The authorities rejected the value based on potential variations in secondhand goods' value due to upkeep and maintenance, emphasizing the challenge in comparing such goods accurately.

Issue 5: Rejection of local Chartered Engineer's inspection request
The appellant's request for inspection by a local Chartered Engineer was denied by the department, impacting the assessment process and raising concerns about the fairness of the valuation.

Issue 6: Reliance on Noritsu's letter for assessing value
The revenue authorities relied on a letter from Noritsu, Singapore, to determine the value of the imported goods, despite the appellant's argument that the model referenced in the letter differed from the actual imported model.

Issue 7: Difference in models of imported goods
The discrepancy in models between the referenced model in Noritsu's letter and the actual imported model raised questions about the accuracy of the value assessment, leading to challenges in the valuation process.

Issue 8: Rejection of appellant's declared value
Despite the appellant's efforts to justify the declared value based on the foreign Chartered Engineer's Certificate, the authorities rejected the declared value, leading to a prolonged legal battle and subsequent appeals.

Issue 9: Request for local Chartered Engineer's inspection not granted
The appellant's request for inspection by a local Chartered Engineer was not accommodated by the department, impacting the assessment process and adding complexity to the valuation dispute.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty as unsustainable. The rejection of the declared value was deemed baseless, considering the explanations provided by the appellant and the lack of basis for the revenue authorities' actions. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the importance of accurate valuation processes and fair consideration of all relevant factors in import disputes.