9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection of goods with much delay which is 18.8.2004. This is already after obtaining the report of first Chartered Engineer. When the department has not given cogent reasons for rejecting the enhancement/valuation made by the first Chartered Engineer and when there is so much delay in inspection as well as report of the second Chartered Engineer, we have to hesitate to accept the enhancement made on the basis of such report of the second Chartered Engineer - the enhancement on the basis of the second Chartered Engineer's certificate is not legal or proper. The appellant is liable to pay duty on the enhanced value on the basis of the report of the, first Chartered Engineer - Further, since the goods were not restricted items during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al High Court as the goods were not released to them. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 19.3.2003 directed the department to provisionally release the goods on payment of duty calculating the value of the goods @ USD 12,140 and also imposing conditions of furnishing bank guarantee and cash deposit. The appellants filed appeal against the single Judge order before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and vide judgment dated 28.4.2003, the Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and directed the respondents to release the goods within one week from the date of the order of the Division Bench. In the said judgment, it was observed that there was a second opinion sought by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 140 in appeal C/265/2007. Similarly, less value than that reported by second Chartered Engineer was assessed in the other two appeals. Thereafter, the department had obtained report of a second Chartered Engineer without stating any reasons and without giving any information to the appellants. He submitted that though in such certificates issued by second Chartered Engineer, it is stated that the goods were inspected at Concord CFS, Chennai, the goods had already been provisionally released to the importers which would go to show that such second certificate has been issued without inspection of the goods. It is also argued by him that there is inordinate delay in inspecting as well as issuing such certificate because the goods had been imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Hon'ble High Court had directed for provisional release of the goods on payment of duty by calculating on the basis of the valuation made by the first Chartered Engineer. Therefore, the appellant, in our opinion, cannot now turn around and say that the valuation made by the first Chartered Engineer is not to be accepted. Thus, dispute can be narrowed to the aspect whether the enhancement confirmed by the Commissioner on the basis of the second Chartered Engineer would sustain or not. We do find discrepancy in the date of inspection in the report filed by the Chartered Engineer. In Appeal No. C/265/2007, the date of inspection of goods by second Chartered Engineer is shown as 30.4.2004. The report is dated 18.8.2004. If we put aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
