9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der CTH 84433100. The declared assessable value of goods was USD 14850 (C&F) equivalent to Rs. 10,23,029.88. On perusal of the documents, it was found that the appellant had imported old and used Digital Devices Canon IR series as under :- Sl.No. Description No. of Pieces Declared Value (C&F) US $ per piece 1. CANON IR 2270/2870 25 110.00 2. CANON IR 3025/3030 15 110.00 3. CANON 2230/2830/2200/2800/2830/3300 95 110.00 TOTAL 135 3. Since the goods were old and used and having photocopying function, it appeared that the import of such goods is restricted under the provisions of Para 2.31 of FTP 2015-2020 and the importer 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 issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed by CE per piece (USD) Value proposed by CE per piece (INR) Total Assessable Value (INR) 1. CANON IR 2270/2870 2002-2008 25 110.00 211.00 14231.95 355799 2. CANON IR 3025/3030 2002-2008 15 110.00 223.00 15041.35 225621 3. CANON 2230/2830/2200 2800/2830/3300 2002-2008 95 110.00 222.00 14973.90 1422521 Total 135 10,23,030/- Rs. 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 Rs. 10,23,030/- and the value proposed by the Chartered Engineer was Rs. 20,03,941/-. The declared value was therefore, hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy 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 Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. d) Penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 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 Commissioner (Appeals) heard the appellant on 4.8.2017 and thereafter, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 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 of the Department. In the same circular in Clause 2(iii), it has been provided that however the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
