ARTEK IMAGING PVT. LTD. AND ARTEK Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides, the applicant filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the value of the goods imported by the appellant were enhanced and ordered to be confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine. Personal penalties also imposed.

(2.) The appellant made import of Mini Lab System and declared the year of manufacture as 1994. The appellant also declared the value of the goods as Singapore 12,800. On investigation by the Customs authorities it was found that machines were not of the year 1994. As per the EXIM Policy the machines which were of more than 10 years old are restricted and its import requires specific licence. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Engineers Certificate the year of the manufacture is 1994. Therefore, the Revenue has, without any evidence, held that the appellant misdeclared the year of manufacture. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the information received from the manufacturer, the model imported by the appellant were manufactured during the year 1988 -91. The contention is that as the manufacturer stopped the manufacture of the model imported by the appellant in the year 1991, therefore, the declaration made by the appellant that the machine is manufactured in the year 1994 is not correct.

(3.) In respect of valuation the contention of the appellant is that they had purchased the second -hand machine and true and correct value is declared in the Bill of Entry, whereas the Revenue is relying upon the letter written by the manufacturers Delhi Office where the value of the machine in the year of introduction was mentioned as Singpore 66650 and the adjudicating authority after giving depreciation fixed the value of the imported goods.