CC Vs. COMPETENT-BUSINESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents had filed a Bill of Entry dated 21.6.2004 for clearance of goods declared as old/used components of photocopiers, imported by them. They had declared its value as US$ 9968 (C&F) as mentioned in the supplier's invoice. Acting upon intelligence received to the effect that certain importers were evading duly on old/used photocopiers by misdeclaring the same as components and under invoicing , SIIB of the Customs House examined the above goods in the presence of independent witnesses and with the assistance of a Chartered Engineer. The Chartered Engineer assessed the value of the goods at US$ 22,743 (C&F) equivalent to Rs. 10,33,609/ - as against the declared value of US$ 9968.45 (C&F) equivalent to Rs. 4,53,066/ -. The CIF value worked out to US$ 22,998.86 (Rs. 10,45,298/ -) and the differential duty worked out to Rs. 1,99,854/ -. Further, it appeared that the above goods, having been found to be second -hand capital goods of more than 10 years old, were restricted for import and could be imported only under specific import licence as per Para 2.17 of the EXIM policy 2002 -07. On this basis, the goods were proposed to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the importer was proposed to be penalized under Section 112(a) of the Act and the value of the goods was proposed to be enhanced as above for the purpose of levy of duty. The importer (respondents) waived SCN and personal hearing and also agreed for enhancement of value of the goods based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The original authority, accordingly, fixed the value of the goods at Rs. 10,45,298/ - (CIF). It also confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Act with option for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 125. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter (a) accepted the declared value of the goods (b) reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and Rs .75,000/ - respectfully and (c) accordingly modified the order passed by the lower authority. The Revenue is presently aggrieved by this decision of the lower appellate authority.

(2.) THERE was no representation for the respondents despite notice, when the appeal was taken up for hearing. There was no request of theirs for adjournment either. The appellant was represented by learned SDR, who reiterated the grounds of the appeal.

(3.) AFTER examining the records and considering the submissions of the appellant, we find that, there is no challenge in this appeal against the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that both the overseas Chartered Engineer's and the local Chartered Engineer's certificates were equally flawed and, therefore, the original authority was not justified in relying on any one of these certificates in preference to the other. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the transaction value was rejected by the lower authority without assigning any reason with reference to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules and, therefore, it was not open to that authority to proceed to enhance the value. The challenge against this finding is ill -founded as it is not supported by any binding judicial authority. Hence we must accept the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards valuation of the goods.