OMEX INTERNATIONAL Vs. CC (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had imported a consignment of 86 old/used photocopying machines and filed Bill of Entry dated 22.2.2006 for clearance of the goods, declaring the value of the goods to be US 39,550 (Rs. 17,70,775/ -). The Commissioner, on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's certificate as to age, residual life and value of the goods, enhanced the assessable value of the goods to Rs. 21,96,035/ - under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and demanded duty accordingly from the appellants. The Commissioner also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option for redemption against payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.2 lakhs on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act.

(2.) IN the present appeal, filed by the assessee, it is their main case that the transaction value was rejected without any reason relatable to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. It is submitted that none of the reasons stated by the Commissioner has anything to do with Rule 4(2). It was not open to the authority to proceed to value the goods on the basis of Chartered Engineer's certificate or on any other ground without first rejecting the transaction value on valid ground. In support of this case of the appellants, ld. counsel relies on the Supreme Court's ruling in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner and the court's judgment in Tolin Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner . Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Bench in Sri Venkatesh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (103) ECC 22 (Tri.). In the light of the cited case, ld. counsel has also prayed for reduction of fine and penalty.

(3.) LD . SDR submits that the facts of the present case are different from those considered by the apex court in the cases cited by counsel. It is submitted that the Commissioner rejected the transaction value under Rule 4(2)(a) and, therefore, it cannot be said that the rejection of transaction value was not in accordance with Rule 4(2). Ld. SDR has also contested the claim of the appellants for reduction of fine and penalty.