9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, classification as scrap or used engines, necessity of specific license for import, confiscation, penalty imposition
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issues revolve around the valuation of imported goods, the classification of goods as scrap or used engines, the necessity of a specific license for import, confiscation of goods, and the imposition of penalties. The appellants, proprietary concerns, imported old and used diesel engines of Japanese origin, declared under specific values. However, investigations revealed discrepancies in the declared values compared to actual market prices, leading to the rejection of the transaction value by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Collector confirmed the assessable value proposed in the show cause notice, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties on the importers. The appellants argued that the imported engines should be considered as scrap, eligible for import under Open General License (OGL) without the need for a specific license. They contended that the engines had ceased to be of utility and should be classified as scrap. However, the Customs authorities, supported by inspection findings, determined that the goods were used engines and not scrap. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's findings that a specific license was necessary for the import of used diesel engines, and import without a license warranted confiscation under the Customs Act. Regarding valuation, the Tribunal scrutinized the declared values based on invoices and import documents, highlighting discrepancies between the declared values and actual market prices. The Tribunal rejected the transaction value indicated in the invoice as it did not reflect the actual prices paid by the importer. The Tribunal also analyzed a quotation obtained by the Department, which showed significantly higher prices than the declared values. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the quotation, such as the lack of reference to specific brands and the small quantity covered, necessitating adjustments for a fair assessment of the assessable value. The Tribunal acknowledged the justification for confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act but directed a reassessment of the redemption fine based on the correct assessable value. The Tribunal set aside confiscation under other clauses of Section 111 and ordered a fresh determination. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties on the importer but directed a reassessment of the penalty amount. The penalties imposed on the proprietary concerns were set aside, with instructions to consider the proprietor's conduct in the import process for penalty imposition. Ultimately, the Tribunal remanded the cases for further consideration by the jurisdictional Commissioner in line with the law and the observations made in the judgment.
|
