9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the invoices of the foreign supplier and the other relevant documents like bill of lading etc. As such no mis-declaration charge can be pressed against the respondent. Otherwise also we find that there is no reference to any evidence on record to create a doubt about transaction value or to believe the certificate given by the foreign supplier. In this scenario, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned in TOLIN RUBBERS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [2003 (11) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] or of the Tribunal IQUIRA INC Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2004 (5) TMI 141 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. - Decided against the revenue. - C/151/2011 - C/A/218/2012-Cus. (PB) - Dated:- 5-7-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Gupta, AR, for the Appellant. Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.K. Gupta, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Naveen Bindal, ld. advocate appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be accepted as the correct assessable value in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the Act. Reliance was placed on Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Motor Industries reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). The appellant also submitted that it was a second hand machine, which cannot be taken at par with new one. The value of the second hand machine depends upon the condition and available quality of the machine and the report of the Chartered Engineer indicating higher assessable value cannot be accepted. By referring to the provisions of Valuation Rules, it was submitted before Commissioner (Appeals) that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of the identical goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. No contemporaneous report stands considered by the assessing authority while enhancing the value. As such they vehemently contested the increase of value by more than three times of the actual value. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the above contention of the respondent. He observed that the respondent was not put to notice before enhancement and no opportunity was given to them. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine series of A, B, C, D where D is the last generation and are digital computerised machines and they again confirm that the invoice value of 15,000 Euros was fair as per age and condition of the machine. In view of the above clarification from the supplier, the explanation of the appellant that the machine is third generation model and letter C denotes third generation of the model, is acceptable. It is not disputed that the appellant declared the description of the goods as per the invoice and that the invoice clearly mentions that the said Adast 745P is equipped with console. There is nothing on record to rebut the contention of the appellant that they have never declared that alleged machine is not computerised. It clearly emerges from the above discussion that the charge of mis-declaration of the description of the imported machine does not sustain against the appellant. 8. The appellant have contended that as per section 14 of the Act, the value of imported goods shall be transaction value of such goods but no specific reason has been assigned as to why declared value has not been accepted and that the assessing authority loaded the value by more than three times of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut for rejection of transaction value in terms of rule 4(2) of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the ratio of above cited decision of the Apex Court and Tribunal. In view of the above, since there is no evidence that transaction in present case falls within the exceptional circumstances specified in proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules, the appellant s objection to rejection of transaction value sustains. 7. As against the above reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue in their grounds of appeal, have contended that the enhancement was done in the presence of respondent CHA and as such the same was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. They have further pleaded that the word C in the model refers to automatic machine with computer operated model of console . By declaring only console in the impugned bill of entry instead of declaring the correct description as computer operated console , the respondent have indulged in misdeclaration. Further it stands pleaded that since the respondent did not produce Chartered Engineer s certificate from the country of supply, the adoptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
