2017 (11) TMI 974 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of Old and used Digital Multifunction Printer - enhancement of value - Held that - As for the question of confiscation of the goods for mis-declaration of value, the appellants had declared the goods correctly in description/quantity/value and classified them under proper chapter heading of Customs Tariff. The value of the goods was enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer s certificate which was accepted by both the parties. We agree with Commissioner (Appeal) s findings that (i) mere enhancement of value on the basis of C.E. certificate cannot be a ground for treating declared value as mis-declared unless there is other corroborative evidence. (ii) except enhancement on the basis of C.E. s Certificate, there is no other material on record to inform that declared value was mis-declared - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Import of "Old and used Digital Multifunction Printer"
2. Confiscation of goods for mis-declaration of value
3. Licensing aspect and applicability of restrictions on import

Analysis:

Issue 1: Import of "Old and used Digital Multifunction Printer"
The case involved the import of "Old and used Digital Multifunction Printers" by the respondent assessee against multiple Bill of Entry. The imported goods were examined and found to be "Old and used" with a residual life of more than six years. The machines had undergone minor reconditioning, and their value was assessed based on an enhanced value against the declared value. The value enhancement was supported by a Chartered Engineer's Certificate, accepted by both parties. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of confiscation, ruling that it did not constitute mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was challenged by the Department through the appeals.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods for mis-declaration of value
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants had correctly declared the goods in terms of description, quantity, and value, and classified them under the appropriate chapter heading of the Customs Tariff. The value enhancement was based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate, accepted by both parties. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeal) that mere value enhancement supported by the certificate was insufficient to establish mis-declaration unless there was additional corroborative evidence. Since there was no other material on record indicating mis-declaration apart from the value enhancement, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings and dismissed the Department's appeals.

Issue 3: Licensing aspect and applicability of restrictions on import
Regarding the licensing aspect, the Commissioner (Appeal) had referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which stated that until a specific date, there were no restrictions on the import of the subject goods. The Tribunal confirmed this position and noted that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had decided not to challenge the Madras High Court's ruling. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the goods were correctly declared, and there was no evidence of mis-declaration apart from the value enhancement based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained the Commissioner's decision, dismissing all appeals filed by the Department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision, emphasizing the correctness of the goods' declaration and the insufficiency of evidence to establish mis-declaration beyond the value enhancement supported by the Chartered Engineer's certificate.