9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported second-hand machines, reliance on Chartered Engineer's certificate, consideration of invoices from Konica Corporation, determination of year of manufacture, application of depreciation, assessment of penalty
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, the appeal involved the valuation of imported second-hand machines, specifically Second Hand Konica Nice Print System Model 612 EQA comprising Printer Processor of Model No. CL PP 1711 EQA and Film Processor of Model No. CL KP 50 EQA. The appellant's representative pointed out that a similar issue was involved in another appeal, requesting both appeals to be heard together without pre-deposit of the amount. The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be linked for disposal without pre-deposit of the penalty. The machines were imported from Singapore and covered by a Chartered Engineer's certificate and an invoice from the trader indicating the year of manufacture and value. The appellant argued that the department chose to rely on a fax from M/s. Konica Corporation from Singapore regarding the price of the machines, while the appellant had an invoice showing a different price. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the prices provided and considered the value declared in the Chartered Engineer's certificate unreliable. The appellant's plea for leniency due to lack of mala fide intentions was noted. The department presented an invoice from M/s. Konica Corporation showing a different price for the Film Processor. The Tribunal considered the invoices from Konica Corporation as reliable evidence for valuation purposes and rejected the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The issue of determining the year of manufacture was addressed, with the Tribunal accepting the year mentioned in the Chartered Engineer's certificate as there was no other evidence provided. After considering the invoices and applying depreciation, the Tribunal recalculated the value of the machines. The order of confiscation was upheld due to discrepancies in the declared values, but the redemption fine was reduced. The penalty imposed was also modified, reducing it in one case and confirming it in another. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate valuation and evidence in customs assessments, concluding that the appeals were otherwise rejected with the mentioned modifications.
|
