2010 (9) TMI 181 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was filed without the opinion of Committee of Commissioners - assessee filed Bill of Entry for clearance of old and used main frames of photocopier machine - Objection was taken to the value of the machines and to their importability - After adjudication, the goods were confiscated with an opportunity to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine - Penalty was also imposed - Commissioner set aside the said order and held that the imported goods were capital goods and, therefore, did not require import licence - Held that - as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2009 objection to importability was no longer valid - valuation, he is unable to show any error in the finding that the machines being second hand, their valuation could not be compared with the new machines - appeals are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT for not filing opinion of Committee of Commissioners.
2. Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Valuation of imported photocopier machines.
4. Interpretation of the judgment in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the dismissal of the appeal by CESTAT due to the non-filing of the opinion of the Committee of Commissioners. The appellant argued that the opinion was available, and its absence in the appeal should not have been a sufficient reason for dismissal. However, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeals (CUSAP Nos. 24 to 27 and 60 of 2010).

2. The case involved the confiscation of old and used main frames of photocopier machines upon import. The goods were confiscated with an option for the importer to redeem them by paying a fine. The Commissioner later set aside the order, stating that the imported goods were capital goods and did not require an import license. The objection to importability was deemed untenable, and the valuation declared by the assessee was accepted, considering the machines were second hand.

3. The issue of valuation was crucial in the judgment. The adjudicating authority had applied the value of new machines, while the imported ones were second hand. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of filing the opinion of the committee under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, which was not done in this case.

4. The judgment referred to the case law of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, where the Supreme Court ruled on the objection to importability. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the precedent set by this judgment, stating that the objection was no longer valid. Additionally, the counsel could not identify any errors in the valuation findings regarding the second-hand nature of the imported machines.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, as no substantial question of law was found. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the dismissal of the appeal, the confiscation of goods, the valuation of imported machines, and the application of legal precedents in determining the validity of objections to importability.