9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import license for the imported goods. 2. Liability of the imported goods for confiscation. 3. Correctness of the declared value of the imported goods. 4. Determination of assessable value. 5. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Import License: The appellants imported two second-hand Spline Milling Machines and claimed clearance under the Import Policy 1992-97, asserting that the import was covered by their import license. The customs authorities found discrepancies, noting that the goods were 1986 make while the license specified 1984 make. The appellants argued that the discrepancy was clerical and insignificant. However, the Tribunal held that the year of manufacture is vital for valuation and compliance with import restrictions, and the failure to amend the license to reflect the correct year made the license invalid for the imported goods. 2. Liability for Confiscation: The customs authorities argued that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were imported without a valid license. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the import of second-hand capital goods required a specific license, which was not valid in this case. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Public Notice No. 48/(PN)/92-97, which allowed such imports without a license, came into effect after the goods were shipped and landed, thus not applicable to this import. 3. Correctness of Declared Value: The appellants declared the value of the goods based on the supplier's invoice. The customs authorities questioned this value, noting that the supplier was not the manufacturer and required the appellants to produce the manufacturer's invoice. The Tribunal found that the declared value was not acceptable as it pertained to machines of 1984 make, whereas the imported machines were of 1986 make. 4. Determination of Assessable Value: The customs authorities enhanced the value of the imported goods for assessment purposes. The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted under Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The Tribunal held that the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied in conjunction with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Given that the imported machines were second-hand and reconditioned, the Tribunal found that the customs authorities rightly determined the value using the manufacturer's price and allowing depreciation. 5. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to allow redemption of the machines on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. However, it found the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be on the higher side, considering the offense was more technical than substantive. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order with a modification, reducing the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
