2019 (2) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .199371 dt. 17/05/2007 for import of one set used offset commercial web printing machine of Make Komori and Model LR 435 S 11, with declared value JPY 10000000. The goods were procured from M/s. Intertech Co., Japan. On examination of goods, the year of make could not be ascertained. Detailed examination was done in the presence of a Chartered Engineer nominated by department. Even on detailed examination the year of manufacture was not seen on machine but the year 1999, 2000 and 2003 appeared on few parts motor, drier, blown etc. Chartered Engineer based on sophistication design, technology and condition of machine appraised the value at 3,00,00,000 JPY and age as 4.5 years old. Importer contested the finding of Chartered Engineer. On veri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot be ascertained and certain parts like motor, blower etc. showed year of manufacture as 1999, 2000, 2003. He further submitted that the importer did not submit the original price of the machinery in the year of manufacture from the manufacturer. He also submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tolin Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2004(163) ELT 289 (SC)]. 5. After considering the submissions of learned AR and perusal of the impugned order, we find that the year of make was not available on the machine and Chartered Engineer was nominated to find out the value of the machine. The Chartered Engineer revalued the goods on the basis of the technology used in the machine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en laid down in Rule 4(1), the transaction value will have to be determined and under the Rule 4(2), if any exceptional circumstance is found then the transaction value indicated in Rule 4(1) will have to be rejected and further determination have to be made under Rule 8. 6. Further we find that in the review order passed by the Committee consisting of the Commissioners of Customs, Cochin and Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, the Committee has not observed that the impugned order is not legal and proper which is required for the purpose of filing appeal by the Department. Therefore, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. (Order was pronounced .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X