2008 (8) TMI 349 - AT - Customs

Valuation Import of second hand photocopier chartered engineer s certificate enhancement in value held that - the valuation done by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be accepted as fair and reasonable inasmuch as no material is available on record in support of the department s proposal to prefer the second report to the first - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the report of M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. in toto, which is not justifiable for the reason already stated by us. Therefore the remand order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be modified. Accordingly, we direct the original authority to determine the value of the goods on the basis of the first report of inspection but without allowing deduction towards cost of reconditioning. The demand of duty shall be quantified accordingly

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application by Revenue for stay of operation of impugned order.
2. Stay application by assessee for stay of recovery and waiver of predeposit.
3. Application for out-of-turn disposal of appeal.
4. Dispute regarding valuation of imported goods.
5. Appeal by assessee against imposition of fine and penalty.
6. Appeal by Revenue against decision of lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department, along with stay applications from both parties. The Tribunal decided to finally dispose of both appeals at that stage after examining the records and hearing arguments from both sides. The appeals were taken up after allowing early posting application and dispensing with pre-deposit.

2. The case revolved around the import of old photocopier machines and LCD monitors by the assessee, with discrepancies in the declared value of the goods leading to a show-cause notice proposing to reject the declared value and redetermine the value of the goods. The original authority upheld the proposals, imposing a redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, leading to further appeals from both parties.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the inspection reports by Chartered Engineers, M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., which differed in their valuation of the imported goods. The first Chartered Engineer's report was accepted by the appellate authority, while the second report was adopted by the original authority, leading to conflicting opinions.

4. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found issues with the valuation reports and the deduction for reconditioning costs allowed by the Chartered Engineers. The Tribunal noted that the first report was rejected without valid reasons, and the evidence supported the valuation done by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the original authority to determine the value of the goods based on the first inspection report without allowing deductions for reconditioning costs.

5. The Tribunal modified the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the original authority to quantify the duty, fine, and penalty based on the first inspection report. The original authority was instructed to consider relevant precedents cited by the assessee and pass a fresh order of adjudication within 30 days.

6. In conclusion, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue were disposed of with directions to determine the value of the goods based on the first inspection report and to consider the precedents cited by the assessee in determining the fine and penalty.