9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed necessary Bill of Entry No.517890 dt. 06.08.2003. Along with the Bill of Entry, importer enclosed an overseas Chartered Engineer certificate issued by CHANG HWA CO. LTD., Seoul, Korea. The Docks Intelligence Unit, Custom House, Chennai took up the consignment for investigation on receipt of intelligence regarding alleged under valuation. Suspecting the value, goods were got examined by a local Chartered Engineer, M/s.Superintendence Co. of India (Private) Ltd., Chennai who vide report dt. 19.08.2003 assessed the value of the goods at USD 54560 (CIF). Since the goods were more than 10 years old, a show cause notice was issued proposing re-assessment of the value of the imported goods as well as confiscation thereof for violation of IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one expert cannot be rejected on the basis of another expert unless there is sufficient independent reason for such rejection. The said decision has also been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (182) ELT A92 (SC). 4. The Ld.D.R supported the impugned order. He argued that learned Commissioner in the impugned order has explained the sufficient reasons for rejecting the load port Chartered Engineer. It has been held that Chartered Engineer who has given the certificate is not on the list of authorized Chartered Engineers notified by D.G.F.T. The certificate also suffers from several deficiencies. Hence it has been rightly disregarded by the adjudicating authority. He further argued that the valuation of imported goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hartered Engineer at load port in respect of one or two machines. In the light of the above, we are of the view that customs authorities have rejected the opinion of one expert simply on the basis of opinion by another expert. We note that there is no other sufficient independent reason for such rejection. Such rejection has been held as not a valid basis for rejection of Chartered Engineer certificate in the case of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills (supra). The said decision has also been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (182) ELT A92 (SC), hence is binding on this Bench. By following the said decision, it is to be held that reassessment value on the basis of local Chartered Engineer certificate is not valid. Consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
