9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in relation to the imported goods, he may ask the importer to furnish further information including the documents or other evidences. If after receiving such further information, or in the absence of the response of the importer, the proper officer still have reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of Rule 3 (1) - In the present case, no such exercise has been done by the proper officer. Thus, rejection of the transaction value is held to be arbitrary and thus, the same is set aside and the declared value restored for the purpose of assessment. Confiscation of goods - HELD THAT:- The same is upheld as the goods imported, admittedly, fall under the category of restricted goods under the Import Policy of the relevant period and the appellant, as required, failed to produce specific import licence from DGFT - the appellant had obtained permission from the Ministry of Environment Forest vide O.M. F.No.23-85/2012/HSMD dated 10.09.2013, wherein they are permitted to import 1500 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter is required to obtain specific licence for import of such items from DGFT. The appellant could not produce the specific import licence against import of goods vide the above said Bill of entry. 4. Further, it also appeared that the goods are also covered under Sr.No.B1110 of Schedule III of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2008, which requires permission from the MOEF before import. 5. The Appellant submitted an Office Memorandum F.O. No.23-85/2012-HSMD dated 10.09.2013 issued by Dr. Chanda Chowdhury, Director, Ministry of Environment Forest ( MOEF) which states as below:- This has reference to the application submitted by M/s.CHAMPIAN PHOSTAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, New Delhi regarding permission to import used Digital Multifunction Device for direct use. The application were considered in the 37th Meeting of the Expert Committee held on 20th March, 2013 and it is to inform that the Ministry has no objection to the import of 1500 nos. of used Digital Multifuntion Print and Copying Machine By M/s.Champion Photostat Industrial Corporation, Rohtak (Haryana) through ICD, Tughlakabad, ICD, Hyderabad and Kolkata Port, subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 225621 3. CANON 2230/2830/2200 2800/2830/3300 2002-2008 95 110.00 222.00 14973.90 1422521 Total 135 10,23,030/- ₹ 20,03,941/- 10. As per the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer, it was observed that the conditions mentioned in Para 5 (a) and (c) as well as the conditions relating to the residual life of five years as mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2013 issued by the MOEF appeared to have been fulfilled by the appellant. 11. However, the appellant had imported the old used goods without having specific import licence/authorisation as required under the FTP and therefore, violated the provisions of FTP 2015-2020 read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The assessable value declared by the appellant was ₹ 10,23,030/- and the value proposed by the Chartered Engineer was ₹ 20,03,941/-. The declared va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the following findings:- a) As per Foreign Trade Policy for the period 1.4.2015 to 31.03.2020, wherein the import of Photocopier Machines/Digital Multifunctional Print and copying machines is under restricted category and is importable against the authorisation. Thus, in absence of import licence from DGFT, the appellant has violated the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy read with the Customs Act. Thus, the goods have been rightly confiscated. b) As regards the enhancement of the value, it has been observed that the same is on the basis of the physical verification and scrutiny of the relevant documents by the approved Chartered Engineer. Further, the enhancement /valuation is in conformity with CBEC Circular No.4/2008-Cus dated 12.02.2008, which deals with valuation of second hand machinery/capital goods. c) Redemption fine was reduced from ₹ 3 lakhs to ₹ 2 lakhs. d) Penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced from ₹ 2 lakh to ₹ 1 lakh. 14. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal, amongst others, the following grounds. 15. It is urged that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CC, Lucknow 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tribunal-Delhi). (ii) Bedy Associates Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2017 (349) ELT 289 (Tribunal-Delhi). (iii) Advanced Scan Support Technologies Vs.CC, Jodhpur 2015 (326) ELT 185 (Tribunal-Delhi). (iv) Gajra Bevel Gears Vs. CC, Bombay 2000 (115)ELT 612 (SC) 20. It is further stated that once the importer has waived the right of show cause notice and personal hearing and opting for assessment on merits, hence, they cannot dispute the assessment done by the Department, which is in accordance with law. Further, as the goods under import are second hand machines /photocopiers, the goods are distinct and cannot be compared on the basis of NIDB data. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already given relief by way of reducing the redemption fine and penalty and accordingly, this appeal may be dismissed. 21. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the CBEC Circular No.4/2008-Cus dated 12.02.2008, which deals with valuation of second hand machinery/capital goods and has upheld the enhancement of the declared value based on the valuation done by the Chartered Engineer at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
