9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on website for valuation of the goods. He has adopted the valuation by BSI Inspectorate Engineer. He has stated that even though the assesse was allowed to cross-examine the BSI Inspectorate Engineer, he has failed to utilize the opportunity. In these circumstances, the adjudicating authority has re-determined the assessable value. We are of the view that in order to reject the transaction value, the adjudicating authority has to establish one of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Eicher case [ 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] . To invoke Rule 10(A), the department should have enough grounds. There is no evidence that the appellant had paid extra amount to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009. As the appellants had not submitted the specific licence, the goods have been imported contrary to the import policy provisions and are liable to confiscation under Section 111D of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the value declared by the appellant was not accepted. The adjudicating authority redetermined the value of the goods at Rs. 38,66,701/- for purpose of assessment of Customs duty. He confiscated the impugned goods under Section 111D of the Customs Act but gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 8,41,881/-. He imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakhs on the importer under Section 112A of the Customs Act. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order of the adjudicating authority. Hence they have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (Order-in-Appeals No. 28 and 29/2004 (H-II) Cus. dated 31-3-2004) (v) The fine and penalty imposed are very high. The Tribunal has levied redemption fine at the rate of 10% of the value of goods and penalty at the rate of 5% of the value of the goods. The following case laws are relied on : (1) Final Order Nos. 543 & 544/2006 dated 3-3-2006 in the case of Appellant v. CC Hyderabad [2006 (201) E.L.T. 311 (T)]. (2) Final Orders No. 231 & 232/2005 dated 14-2-2005 passed in Appeal Nos. C/31/2003 and C/39/2003. (3) Final Orders No. 957 & 958/2005 dated 20-6-05 passed in Appeal Nos. C/241/02 and C/236/04. (vi) The internet price is not reliable and cannot be the basis for valuation. The following case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh one of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Eicher case. To invoke Rule 10(A), the department should have enough grounds. There is no evidence that the appellant had paid extra amount to the foreign supplier through channels other than banking channels. In the absence of evidence we hold that the transaction value has to be accepted. Therefore, on the valuation aspect, we allow the party's appeal. As regards the licensing aspect we hold that in view of the specific provisions in the import policy, the second-hand capital goods require licence. In the absence of licence they are reliable to be confiscated. Hence, the confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
