9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value and for confiscation of the goods on the ground that these are consumer goods which requires specific licence for import. 3. The adjudicating authority determined the value at US$ 1,30,050 (C & F) (Rs. 60,47,325/-) and ordered the confiscation of the goods and allowed to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 9,07,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act. 4. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of import, the appellant filed a Chartered Engineer certificate declaring the value of the goods as declared to in the Bill of Entry. The contention is that the goods were again examined by the Chartered Engineer and the SCN was issued on the basis of the opinion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opier machine enhanced on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer i.e. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd. In the certificate, Chartered Engineer mentioned that these are old and used machines and the year of manufacture is also not available on any machine and these machines are believed to have been produced during the year between 1994-97. It is also certified that the photocopier machines are old and used and not reconditioned and these are currently out of production and are absolute. The Chartered Engineer also certified that these machines cannot be made functional without modification of circuitries to suit Indian Standard Electrical Regulation. The Chartered Engineer determined the value of the imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omparison of the data from website for another model is not reliable evidence to enhance the value of the imported goods. In these circumstances, we find that enhancement of the value by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable and set aside. 8. Now we take up the issue regarding the confiscation. The second- hand photocopiers are held to be consumer goods, therefore, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. We find that the Tribunal in the case of SKD Commercial v. Commissioner of Customs relied upon by the appellant held that the photocopiers are capital goods and are not consumer goods. The revenue has not shown us any prohibition under the import policy in respect of second-hand photocopiers as capital goods. In these cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
