9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported second hand printing machine, denial of natural justice, comparison of machine values, principles of natural justice
In this case, the appellants imported a second hand Solna 425 offset printing machine from the U.K. The Custom House did not accept the invoice price of lb25,000 provided by the suppliers and redetermined the value based on another invoice for a similar machine imported from the same country. The appellants appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who upheld the Custom House's decision, leading to the present appeal. The appellants argued that they were not issued a show cause notice or given an opportunity to be heard, resulting in a denial of natural justice. They contended that the machine was second hand and the declared value was supported by a Chartered Engineer's certificate. They challenged the comparison of values with another machine, stating that such comparisons are not valid for second hand machines due to potential differences in condition. The Senior Departmental Representative justified the department's valuation, citing the Chartered Engineer's certification of the machine's condition and residual life. He defended the comparison with another import of the same make and model, emphasizing the similarity in conditions and certifications by the Chartered Engineer. He explained the practical issue of a different officer issuing the order due to workload in the Custom House. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the order had been issued in the name of an Assistant Collector who did not pass the order, contrary to principles of natural justice. The Tribunal accepted the Chartered Engineer's certification of the machine's value at lb25,000 and criticized the rejection of this value by the authorities. They noted the reasonable price charged by the suppliers, corresponding to a depreciation of about 56% in 1989. The Tribunal disagreed with the Collector (Appeals)'s rejection of the appellants' argument regarding the machine's condition, emphasizing the difficulty of comparing conditions between different imports. They highlighted discrepancies in the machine descriptions between the subject import and the compared import but ultimately sided with the appellants, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal.
|
