2000 (8) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Valuation of imported machinery including dismantling charges.
2. Imposition of duty liability and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Act.

Issue 1: Valuation of imported machinery including dismantling charges

The case involved an appeal regarding the valuation of a second-hand 'Water Hydraulic Extrusion Press Plant' imported by the Appellants. The department contended that the actual value should include dismantling charges, leading to a higher duty liability. The Appellant argued that the department erred in adding dismantling charges to the invoice value, as the machinery was purchased already dismantled from the seller. The Appellant provided invoices showing the machinery was ex-factory Sweden and had been dismantled before purchase. The department's reliance on a letter regarding a different machine's dismantling charges was contested by the Appellant, stating it was not applicable to the current case. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for further examination on this matter.

Issue 2: Imposition of duty liability and penalty under Customs Act, 1962

The duty liability and penalty were imposed based on the department's valuation of the imported machinery. The differential duty liability and penalty were contested by the Appellant, citing discrepancies in the department's assessment methodology. The penalty was imposed under Section 12(v) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted the Appellant's argument and found merit in their contention, indicating a need for detailed scrutiny.

Issue 3: Application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Act

The Appellant sought a stay or waiver of the pre-deposit amount as required under Section 129E of the Act pending the appeal. The Appellant demonstrated financial strain through the submission of the balance sheet and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. Considering the arguable case presented by the Appellant, the Tribunal waived the deposit condition and directed the Respondent not to take coercive measures for recovering the amounts in question until further orders. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing on a specified date without the need for a fresh notice.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of valuation of imported machinery, duty liability, penalty under the Customs Act, and the application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments presented by the parties, indicating the need for a detailed examination of the valuation methodology and the imposition of penalties. The decision to waive the deposit requirement highlighted the Tribunal's recognition of the Appellant's financial circumstances and the presence of an arguable case warranting further consideration.