2009 (2) TMI 302 - AT - Customs

Appellant imported used Pentium III Computers, monitors including power cables, etc. Appellant filed Bills of Entry for the said consignments and also filed Chartered Engineers certificate as regards the value of the imported consignments. Lower authorities in all the cases except in two cases did not accept the value as certified by the Chartered Engineer, enhanced the value, consequently holding goods liable for confiscation and imposed penalty. There is no evidence that the appellant had paid extra amount to the foreign supplier through channels other than banking channels. In the absence of evidence, we hold that the transaction value has to be accepted. Therefore, on the valuation aspect, we allow the party s appeal. - Held that rejection of Chartered Engineer Certificate without any reason is not proper - The assessable value has to be worked out by adding actual amount of insurance charges, and not at a notional rate - Since these goods were non-declared, the concession of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5%, respectively, of the assessable value will not be available to the appellant. - It is undisputed that import of second-hand used computers needs a Special Import Licence, without which they are liable to confiscation

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of Chartered Engineer's certificate and enhancement of value by lower authorities.
- Confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, and redemption fine.
- Misdeclaration of value and violation of Foreign Trade Policy and Regulations.
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved multiple appeals by the same appellant against Orders-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original. The common issue in all appeals was the rejection of Chartered Engineer's certificate and the subsequent enhancement of value by lower authorities. The appellant had imported used Pentium III Computers, monitors, and other items, filing Bills of Entry and Chartered Engineers certificates. The lower authorities did not accept the certified value, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The appellant contended that the rejection of the certificate was erroneous, citing previous decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal analyzed each appeal separately based on the specific facts involved.

In Appeal Nos. C/180, 216 & 217/2006, the goods were found to be used Pentium II and III computers, leading to confiscation due to misdeclaration of value and violation of trade regulations. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision and limited the redemption fine and penalty. Similarly, in Appeal No. C/228/2007, the imported goods were held liable for confiscation due to lack of license, but the Tribunal limited the redemption fine and penalty based on precedent.

In Appeal No. C/179/2006, the Adjudicating Authority accepted the transaction value but ordered confiscation due to non-declaration of goods. The appellant disputed the valuation of certain items, arguing that the value was included in the invoices. The Tribunal held that the non-declared items needed separate valuation, and if supported by a Chartered Engineer's certificate, duty liability should be calculated accordingly. The goods were deemed to be imported in violation of trade policy, leading to specific redemption fine and penalty calculations.

The judgment concluded by disposing of all appeals according to the specific findings and directions provided for each case. Only Appeal No. C/179/2006 was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the correct assessable value, redemption fine, and penalty based on the Tribunal's directions.