LAWS(CE)-2004-1-187

EMPIRE DIGITAL PRINTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Decided On January 30, 2004
Empire Digital Prints Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order -in -Original No. 33/2000 -CAU, dated 20 -7 -2000. By the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the machine has been supplied along with the software already embedded in its memory as evidence by the Test Certificate and Checklist in the Log Book as well as the trouble shooting column in the Operators Manual. The price of the machine is US $ 292,500 which was split into US $ 204,750 for Printer and US $ 87,750 for Software, at the request of the importers, to enable them to claim duty free clearance for an amount of US $ 87,750. Accordingly, he held that the value of the Printer had been mis -declared. However, he observed that the value of the machine should be adopted as US $ 292,500. Accordingly, the Commissioner, while demanding the duty payable, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 13,00,000/ - in lieu of confiscation, apart from a imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/ - on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) SHRI M.S. Srinivasa, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the appellants have declared the entire value inclusive of Software in the Bill of Entry. No attempt has been made by the appellant in the Bill of Entry to see that the Software value was excluded from the scope of value of imported goods. He said that the entire value of the Printer along with the value of Software had been declared in the subject Bill of Entry. He drew our attention to the relevant document placed before them to show that the value of the Software was shown NIL and the value of the machinery was declared as US $ 292,500. However, he said that the entire proceeding was initiated on the reason that the foreign supplier gave split up of the value in terms of Hardware and Software. The supplier, no doubt, has issued an invoice showing separate value of Hardware and Software, but the appellants did not, in any manner whatsoever, claim advantage of this split up value.

(3.) HEARD Smt. Radha Arun, learned SDR, for Revenue.