9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plier. The machinery was classified under Heading 8422 44 00 of the CTA and CETA Schedules. In respect of one of the machines, the benefit of concessional rate of basic customs duty was claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 537). As both the machines were used/second-hand, the importer was asked to submit the load port Chartered Engineer s certificate but the same was not produced. In the circumstances, the goods were got examined by the local Chartered Engineers M/s. S.G.S. India (P) Ltd., who, in their report dated 2-6-2006, confirmed the declared description of the goods but reported EURO 3,19,528.80 (FOB) as the correct value of the goods. This value was certified by the local Chartered Engineers on the basis of the inspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. Without prejudice to this case of the appellants, the learned counsel also submits that the goods in question are no longer fit for the intended purpose and therefore the same maybe permitted to be re-exported. 3. The learned SDR points out that the enhancement of value having been agreed to by the importer, they are precluded from contending that there was no misdeclaration of value. According to her, on the facts of this case, there was clear misdeclaration of value and therefore the Commissioner s order confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) (with redemption fine) and imposing penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) is quite justifiable. In this connection, reliance is placed on Final Order No. 604-607/2008 dated 24-6-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus misdeclaration is evident in this case. Obviously, this is the reason why the appellants agreed to enhancement of value before the adjudicating authority. The goods, the value of which was misdeclared by the importer, attracted Section 111(m) of the Act and therefore the challenge against the confiscation of such goods is not tenable. The learned counsel has relied on the Board s Circular No. 4/2008-Cus. dated 12-2-2008. In relation to valuation of second-hand machinery, this Circular suggests that a local Chartered Engineer s certificate may be accepted in the absence of proper load port certificate. Firstly, this guideline issued by the CBEC on 12-2-2008 has no retrospective effect. Secondly, it is relevant only in the absence of lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
