9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 609 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Held that - The Commissioner(Appeals) has taken note of all the facts and the evidences on record and has recorded reasoned finding wherein he has considered the report of Chartered Engineer and the Board s circular No.4/2008 dt. 02/12/2008 and has come to the conclusion that the value declared by the importer is the correct value - The Commissioner(Appeals) has also observed that the second hand machinery should also be assessed by the transaction value method and Rule 3 and other parameters of the Rule 14 of Customs Act are satisfied. In the review order passed by the Committee consisting of the Commissioners of Customs, Cochin and Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, the Committee has not observed that the impugned order is not legal and proper which is required for the purpose of filing appeal by the Department - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the Commissioner(Appeals) order allowing the appeal of the assessee after accepting the invoice value. 2. Rejection of declared value by the importer and refixing based on Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 3. Challenge to the revision of value by the importer. 4. Sustainability of the impugned order without considering the Chartered Engineer's report. 5. Justification of rejecting declared value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 6. Consideration of Chartered Engineer's report in revaluing the goods. 7. Commissioner(Appeals) reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Tolin Rubber Pvt. Ltd. case. 8. Assessment of second-hand machinery by the transaction value method. 9. Compliance with Rule 3 and other parameters of Rule 14 of Customs Act. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner(Appeals) order accepting the invoice value after the rejection of the declared value by the importer for the import of a used offset commercial web printing machine. The Chartered Engineer's examination revealed discrepancies in the year of manufacture, leading to a revaluation of the machine. The Revenue contended that the Chartered Engineer's report was not considered, and the original value of the machine was not provided. The Revenue justified the rejection of the declared value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, emphasizing the lack of a Chartered Engineer certificate from the port of shipment and the absence of direct purchase from the manufacturer. The Tribunal noted that the Chartered Engineer's revaluation was based on the machine's technology and sophistication, leading to the rejection of the declared value. The Commissioner(Appeals) considered all facts and evidence, including the Chartered Engineer's report and relevant circulars, concluding that the declared value was correct. The Commissioner(Appeals) also highlighted the necessity of assessing second-hand machinery through the transaction value method, satisfying Rule 3 and Rule 14 parameters of the Customs Act. The reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Tolin Rubber Pvt. Ltd. case supported the acceptance of the declared value. Furthermore, the review order by the Committee did not find any legal or procedural flaws in the impugned order, upholding the decision. The Tribunal, therefore, found no infirmity in the Commissioner(Appeals) order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of following valuation rules and established legal precedents in customs matters.
|
