2004 (12) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Appeal against adjudication order - Valuation (Customs) - Import of Second-hand photocopiers machine - Contemporaneous import - Confiscation - Penalty - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority held that model 4080 which is imported by the appellant is an advanced model of 4050 regarding which that data was collected from the website. After doing so the adjudicating authority taking into consideration the import price of model 4050 as contemporary import of model 4080 and allowed 10% discount for bulk quantity. As there is no data available on the website in respect of 4080 model therefore the comparison of the data from website for another model is not reliable evidence to enhance the value of the imported goods. In these circumstances we find that enhancement of the value by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable and set aside. Confiscation - The second- hand photocopiers are held to be consumer goods therefore the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. We find that the Tribunal in the case of SKD Commercial v. Commissioner of Customs 2004 (10) TMI 472 - CESTAT MUMBAI relied upon by the appellant held that the photocopiers are capital goods and are not consumer goods. The revenue has shown us any prohibition under the import policy in respect of second-hand photocopiers as capital goods. Thus the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty is also not sustainable hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against adjudication order for enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition.

Enhancement of Value: The appellant imported old and used photocopiers, declaring a value of US$ 73,170 (C & F). Revenue issued SCN for enhancement of value to US$ 1,30,050 (C & F) and confiscation, based on requiring a specific license for import of consumer goods. Appellant contended value was declared as per Chartered Engineer certificate, and goods were capital goods with no import prohibition. Adjudicating authority relied on Chartered Engineer's certificate and comparison with other imports, but lacked evidence on condition and year of manufacture. Tribunal found enhancement not sustainable due to unreliable comparison and lack of data on the imported model.

Confiscation of Goods: Revenue argued goods were consumer goods, not capital goods, and hence rightly confiscated. Chartered Engineer certified the imported photocopiers as old, used, and not reconditioned, requiring modifications to function per Indian standards. Tribunal held photocopiers as capital goods, not consumer goods, as no import policy prohibition for second-hand photocopiers as capital goods was shown. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.