9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignment as Rs. 39,30,665/- and in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises the appellant declared the value of the goods as Rs. 54,66,718/-. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Customs authorities and in the case of M/s. N.K. Enterprises the value of the goods was enhanced to Rs. 50,42,000/- and in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises the value enhanced to Rs. 71,43,522/-. The adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods on the ground that these are consumer goods and are imported in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. 3. The appellants are not challenging the confiscation of the goods in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Traders vide Final Order No. 347-352/05-NB(A), dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r machines was enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer s certificate. The Chartered Engineers certificate shows that there is no year of manufacture of the goods imported which is relevant for the purpose of determining the value of goods. The Revenue is not relying on any contemporaneous import in respect of similar goods. The goods in question are old and used photocopier machine and old and used machines are sold for taking into consideration the condition and usage of the machine. In a similar situation in the case of M/s. National Imaging Systems (Supra) the Tribunal set aside the value enhanced by the Customs authorities where the value was enhanced in respect of old and used photocopier main frame. The Tribunal held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineer s certificate compared with the evidence of value available with the appraising group. The Chartered Engineer has not furnished the year of manufacture of the goods which is very relevant for the purpose of determining whether their transaction value is required to be rejected. There is no evidence furnished of contemporaneous imports. In these circumstances, the Tribunal s decision in the case of S S International v. CCE - Final order No. 366/2005, dated 22-2-2005 holding that in the absence of any evidence of contemporaneous imports, the transaction value is required to be accepted, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal s decision in the case of Competent Business Machines v. CC Thiruchirappalli - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
