9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary of M/s. Goodyear Tyre Rubber Company, USA imported nine numbers of used tyre curing press from M/s. Goodyear Philippines Inc., which is also a subsidiary of M/s. Goodyear, USA; that they had declared the assessable value as Rs. 2,66,62,491/- that the goods were examined on first check basis by the Customs Authority who found certain discrepancies with regard to the year of manufacture and they also wanted to enhance the value to the extent of 30 to 35% approximately; that they waived the issue of show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing before the Commissioner on 11-7-2003; that after the personal hearing the Commissioner has constituted a panel consisting of the officers of Machinery Expert, Group Appraiser, Docks Appraise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the invoice in respect of remaining seven machines in question. Finally, he submitted that the method of determining the value of the imported goods had not been indicated in the impugned Order or made known to them at any point of time; that, therefore, the value cannot be enhanced. Regarding two machines being more than 10 years old, he submitted that substantial reconditioning and refurnishing of these machine had taken place in 1998-2000 and, therefore, both the supplier and the Chartered Engineer had certified the year of manufacture as 1998; that therefore, the year of manufacture has to be taken as 1998/2000 only; that in any case the penalty and the redemption fine imposed on them are excessive. 3.Countering the argument Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of manufacture of these machines is 1970. This has been mentioned by them themselves in Para C 2 of their Grounds of Appeal. Accordingly, the finding of the Commissioner in this regard is upheld. We also agree with the learned Senior Departmental Representative that the letter dated 25-7-2003 in which they had agreed with the finding of the Panel and had accepted the valuation arrived at the time of re-examination cannot be treated as an involuntary letter. There is nothing in the letter to suggest that it was taken from them under duress or coercion. In view of these circumstances, it cannot also be claimed by them that the method of determining the value of the imported goods has not been disclosed to them. We, therefore, uphold the enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
