FOTO LINK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) The writ petitioner is engaged in process, development and printing of photographs imported from M/s. Print Machinery Trading, Singapore, 2nd Hand Konica Nice Print System, Model 612 EQA comprising printer processor of Model No. CL 991711QA and film processor of Model No. CL KP 50 EQA Mtogether with standard accessories, under the cover of invoice No. PM/INV.067/96, dated 2-9-1996. The price is shown as 9400 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 petitioner submitted that when the petitioner had prod uced the Chartered Engineer's Certificate to show that the declared value was the correct value, the original authority erred in relying on the fax message on Konika, Singapore and erroneously fixed the value of imported goods at the equivalent of 59,000 US $. The appellate authority had rejected the fax message clearly and held that the document cannot be looked into for the purpose of valuation. If that is so, the only other document that was available before the authority was the Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal. Instead of which, the appellate authority had looked into two invoices produced by the department's representatives, at the time of hearing of the appeal, which were not produced before the original authority. According to the learned counsel, the appellate authority ought not to have relied on new material, which the assessee had no opportunity to counter. For this reliance was placed on ( Reckitt & Colman of India Limited V/s. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 88 ELT 641 ).