2020 (9) TMI 661 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used Digital Multifunctional Devices - rejection of transaction value - enhancement of the value of the imported goods on the basis of Chartered Engineer s Certificate - non-submission of specific licence for importation from the DGFT - CBEC Circular No.4/2008-Cus dated 12.02.2008 - HELD THAT - The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the CBEC Circular No.4/2008-Cus dated 12.02.2008, which deals with valuation of second hand machinery/capital goods and has upheld the enhancement of the declared value based on the valuation done by the Chartered Engineer at the instance of the Department. In the same circular in Clause 2(iii), it has been provided that however the transaction value of Rule (3) cannot be rejected by ab initio application of Rule 9, in as much as, one cannot, before rejecting the transaction value of Rule 3 with sufficient evidences, straight away arrive at notional value under Rule 9. Rule 3 read with Rules 12 requires that where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in relation to the imported goods, he may ask the importer to furnish further information including the documents or other evidences. If after receiving such further information, or in the absence of the response of the importer, the proper officer still have reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of Rule 3 (1) - In the present case, no such exercise has been done by the proper officer. Thus, rejection of the transaction value is held to be arbitrary and thus, the same is set aside and the declared value restored for the purpose of assessment. Confiscation of goods - HELD THAT - The same is upheld as the goods imported, admittedly, fall under the category of restricted goods under the Import Policy of the relevant period and the appellant, as required, failed to produce specific import licence from DGFT - the appellant had obtained permission from the Ministry of Environment Forest vide O.M. F.No.23-85/2012/HSMD dated 10.09.2013, wherein they are permitted to import 1500 nos. of digital multifunctional print and photocopying machines, subject to the conditions that MED must have residual life of 5 years as certified by Chartered Engineer, which has been certified - the order of confiscation upheld. The redemption fine reduced to 10% and penalty under Section 112 (a) reduced to 5% of the assessable value - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of transaction value and enhancement of the value of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods for non-submission of a specific import license from DGFT.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transaction Value and Enhancement of Value:
The appellant imported old and used Digital Multifunctional Devices and declared the assessable value based on the invoice from the shipper. The Customs authorities, however, doubted the declared value and sought a Chartered Engineer's assessment, which significantly increased the value. The Tribunal found that the Customs authorities did not follow the proper procedure as per Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, which requires the proper officer to ask for further information and provide reasons for doubting the declared value. The Tribunal ruled that the rejection of the transaction value was arbitrary and restored the declared value for assessment.

2. Confiscation of Goods for Non-Submission of Specific Import License:
The import of the old and used Digital Multifunctional Devices required a specific import license from DGFT as per the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. The appellant failed to produce this license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were classified as "restricted" under the Import Policy. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had obtained permission from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, which certified the residual life of the machines and their functionality, but failed to obtain the necessary DGFT license.

3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Adjudicating Authority initially imposed a redemption fine of ?3,00,000 and a penalty of ?2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to ?2,00,000 and the penalty to ?1,00,000. The Tribunal further reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the assessable value and the penalty to 5%, following the precedent set in the case of Omex International. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proportionality in the imposition of fines and penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, restoring the declared transaction value for assessment while upholding the confiscation of goods due to the absence of a specific import license. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced to 10% and 5% of the assessable value, respectively. The appellant was granted consequential benefits in accordance with the law.