9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correctness of order-in-original regarding confiscation of imported machine and imposition of fine and penalty. 2. Discrepancy in the declared value of the imported machine and the actual value assessed by the Chartered Engineer. 3. Inclusion of additional items in the import beyond what was mentioned in the invoice. 4. Acceptance of the valuation provided by the Chartered Engineer by the Commissioner. 5. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions cited by the appellant in determining the value of the imported machine. Issue 1: Correctness of order-in-original The appellant disputed the order-in-original that confiscated the Universal Interlock Knitting Machine imported from Korea, imposing a fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh under Section 112A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs also assessed 480 Cams imported with the machine at a value of Rs. 96,000. The appellant challenged the correctness of this order. Issue 2: Discrepancy in declared value The appellant imported a second-hand reconditioned machine from Korea, invoiced at Rs. 10,000 US $. However, upon inspection by a Chartered Engineer, it was found to be a brand new machine manufactured in March 1999, valued at 17,500 US $. The discrepancy in the declared value and the actual value assessed led to the initiation of proceedings by Customs Authorities. Issue 3: Inclusion of additional items Apart from the machine, 480 Cams valued at Rs. 96,000 were found accompanying the import, which was not originally mentioned in the invoice. The misdeclaration of the nature of the goods imported and the additional items included raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the import declaration. Issue 4: Acceptance of valuation by Chartered Engineer The Commissioner accepted the valuation provided by the Chartered Engineer after discrepancies were identified in the declared value of the machine. Despite the appellant waiving the show cause notice, the Commissioner relied on the Engineer's valuation and the presence of additional items to make the assessment. Issue 5: Applicability of previous tribunal decisions The appellant cited 11 previous tribunal decisions supporting the acceptance of the value shown in the invoice alone. However, the Tribunal found that the cited decisions were not applicable to the current case due to the established misdeclaration of the goods' nature and value. The misdeclaration rendered the cited decisions irrelevant to the circumstances of this appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming the confiscation of the machine, imposition of fines and penalties, and the valuation of additional items. The discrepancies in the declared value, inclusion of unmentioned items, and the acceptance of the Chartered Engineer's valuation were pivotal in determining the outcome of the appeal.
|
