9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1083 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - offset printing machine along with standard accessories - enhancement of value - Held that - customs authorities have rejected the opinion of one expert simply on the basis of opinion by another expert. There is no other sufficient independent reason for such rejection. Such rejection has been held as not valid basis for rejection of Chartered Engineer certificate in the case of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills 2004 (5) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - reassessment value on the basis of local Chartered Engineer certificate is not valid. Consequently, the declared value backed by the Chartered Engineer certificate from the originator is to be accepted. Confiscation of goods - penalty - Held that - Admittedly, the imported goods are more than 10 years old in terms of Import Trade Control Regulations in EXIM 2002-07 read with para 3.3 of the Handbook of Procedures of Vol-I. The importers have violated the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The goods are therefore liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - the importers are liable for imposition of penalty also under Section 112 (a) ibid - however, the redemption fine reduced to ₹ 60,000/- and the penalty imposed reduced to ₹ 30,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Disregarding overseas Chartered Engineer certificate - Rejection of load port Chartered Engineer certificate - Confiscation of imported goods - Imposition of fine and penalty Disregarding overseas Chartered Engineer certificate: The appellant imported used offset printing machines and declared a value, which was later contested by the customs authorities. The local Chartered Engineer reassessed the value higher than the declared amount. The appellant argued that the overseas Chartered Engineer certificate was valid and genuine, and the local assessment was arbitrary. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions to support the acceptance of the declared value backed by the original certificate. The Customs Department, however, supported the rejection of the overseas certificate, citing deficiencies and lack of authorization of the Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the overseas certificate without sufficient independent reasons was not valid, following the precedent set by previous judgments. Therefore, the declared value supported by the original certificate was accepted. Rejection of load port Chartered Engineer certificate: The dispute arose from the rejection of the load port Chartered Engineer certificate by customs authorities. The local Chartered Engineer's assessment was based on a higher value, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of fines and penalties. The Tribunal noted that the local Chartered Engineer did not have additional information to reassess the value and did not provide technical references for the valuation. The rejection of one expert's opinion solely based on another expert's assessment was deemed insufficient without independent reasons, as established in previous judgments upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the reassessment value based on the local Chartered Engineer certificate was deemed invalid, and the declared value supported by the original certificate was upheld. Confiscation of imported goods: The imported goods were more than ten years old, violating trade regulations, leading to their confiscation under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found the importers liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to violations of the Foreign Trade Act. This decision was based on the age of the imported goods and the relevant trade regulations. Imposition of fine and penalty: In addition to the confiscation of the goods, the importers were also liable for penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importers. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 60,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 30,000, taking into account the facts of the case. In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed with the reduction in fines and penalties, while upholding the declared value supported by the original Chartered Engineer certificate.
|
