Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Katrina Deals vs Cc, New Delhi on 24 September, 2014
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:24.09.2014
1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Customs Appeal No.C/78/2010-CU(DB)
[(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)Cus./ICD/233/2009 dated 22.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.]
M/s.Katrina Deals Appellants
Vs.
CC, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Jain, AR and Shri Amresh Jain, AR for the respondent. Coram:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Order No. 53777/ 2014 Dated24.09.2014 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of the old and used second hand imported monitors and computer parts. For better appreciation, for the reasons adopted by the Revenue, for enhancement of the assessable value, we reproduce the relevant paragraphs:-
5. As regards the enhancement of the declared assessable value is concerned, the same has been done on the basis of valuation proposed by the Chartered Engineer. In case of old and used goods, this is a regular practice as in such cases the invoice value always remains doubtful. Moreover, the Appellants had accepted the enhanced value before clearance of the goods. The case law at Sl.No.iv of para-3 above relied upon by the appellants is not applicable as in that particular case, the value of the imported goods was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and not on the basis of Chartered Engineers certificate. Hence, the Appellants contention that the rejection of the declared value is not legal is rejected.
2. As is seen from the above, the Appellate Authority has expressed doubts about the transaction value and has observed that in case of import of old and used items, the assessable value is enhanced as per the regular practice. We are afraid we do not find ourselves in agreement with the above views of the Appellate Authority. The assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which have been the subject matter of various decisions of High Courts, in which it stands held that the said rules have to be followed striatum wise and the transaction value has to be first rejected by producing sufficient and tangible evidence. The reference can be made to the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Tolin Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin reported in 2004 (163) ELT 289 (SC). The list is never ending. It is well settled that valuation has to be done based upon the evidence and not upon the doubts.
3. In view of the above, we find no reasons to enhance the value. However, we also note that the goods being second hand goods, require a licence for import. The appellant is not challenging the said ground but submits that the redemption fine and penalty be reduced in that case.
4. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the redemption fine from Rs.3.30 Lakhs to Rs.2.50 Lakhs and penalty from Rs.1.30 Lakhs to Rs.75,000/-. Ld. Advocate has brought to our notice the other decision of the Tribunal where the redemption fine was reduced to 10% and penalty to 5%. Our attention stands drawn to a latest decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Courts decision in the case of B.E. Office Automation Products vide final order dated 18.11.2013, wherein the Honble High Court has held that keeping in view the element of wiping out of profit in the interface of expenditure incurred on detention and demurrage charges as also in defraying of legal expenses and interest, redemption fine of 10% of the value assessed by the department and penalty of 5% of such value would suffice. By adopting the same criteria, we reduce the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the value of the imported goods. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Ckp.