9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US $. The department did not accept the declared value. After personal hearing, the third respondent enhanced the value of the goods from Rs. 2,39,042/- (declared) to Rs. 9,90,498/- based on a fax message received from the exporter M/s. Konica, Singapore which is equivalent to 59,000/- US $. The goods were confiscated, option was given to the petitioner to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 70,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. Against that an appeal was filed. The appellant authority relying on new materials, fixed the value at Rs. 4,00,000/- each and redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 23,000/-. Against that this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The third respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner that the cost prevailing for the machinery 1989, cannot be taken into account, since the machinery had become obsolete. However, this respondent had given no reason that the Chartered Engineer's certificate should not be accepted. It had fixed the value on the basis of the fax message. 6. The Chartered Engineer's Certificate gives the values of the printer processor. The second respondent, does not refer to this either. The fax reply could not have been taken into account for determination of the value. The second respondent totally rejects the fax message, which reads as follows : "The basis adopted by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods. After having rejected the fax message and without giving reason for rejecting the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, the Tribunal has accepted new materials that was placed before it at the time of the appeal. 8. The petitioner had no opportunity to present his case with regard to the invoice that was produced by the department's representatives at the time of appeal. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as follows : The impugned order is therefore set aside. The matter is sent back to the third respondent to fix the value of the goods on the basis of the evidence available and the invoices produced by the representatives and any other materials that may be produced at the time of hearing. The finding of the appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
