Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Arun Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) on 22 July, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/329/2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.3532/2005 dt. 21.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai]
For approval and signature :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities ? :
Arun Enterprises Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Chennai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.R. Padmanabhan, C.A. For the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 22-07-2014 Date of Decision : 22-07-2014 FINAL ORDER No.40564/2014 Per P.K. Das
1. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No.723730 dated 06.12.2004 for clearance of "One used 4 colour Kammann Printing Machine from M/s.Disco Press BVBA, Germany". They did not produce the manufacturer's invoice or Chartered Engineer's certificate in respect of the declared value. They have declared the value of Euro 5000 in their invoices. Customs authorities engaged Chartered Engineer for examination of the used machine. M/s.BSI Inspectorate India Pvt. Ltd. assessed the value of the goods at Euro 17500. On examination of the Appraiser's report, the Customs authorities felt that the certificate was incomplete in nature and therefore another examination was done through M/s.SGS India Pvt. Ltd. who had valued the goods Euro 35000. Subsequently, earlier Chartered Engineer, BSI Inspectorate India Pvt. Ltd. revised their certificate and enhanced the value to Euro 52115. M/s.SGS India Ltd. also revised their price to Euro 37800. The adjudicating authority after considering the Chartered Engineer's certificates had rejected the declared value of Euro 5000 as declared by the appellant and determined the value at Euro 37800. He also confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs and penalty of Rs.3 lakhs.
2. The main contention of learned counsel is that BSI Inspectorate Pvt. Ltd. in their first report declared the value at Euro 17500 which should be accepted as there is no objection by the department as well as by the importer. He submits that both the inspection agencies changed their values without any objection and therefore both the revised certificates would be required to be discarded. He also submits that the importer has not undervalued as the goods as secondary in nature. Therefore imposition of fine and penalty are not warranted.
3. On the other hand, Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the adjudicating authority, after considering the reports in detail, had arrived at the revised value. It is also submitted that the adjudicating authority had not considered the maximum value of Euro 52115. Thus the adjudication order is legal and proper.
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority discarded initial report of BSI Inspectorate India Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that BSI Inspectorate India Pvt. Ltd. had failed to ascertain the basis of the value. For better appreciation of the case, we reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order :-
I observe that the CE, M/s.SGS INDIA Pvt. Ltd has appraised the value of the machine at Euro 35,000 in their original report dated 12/01/2005 but have cancelled the earlier report and furnished a report dated 1/3/2005 instead in which they have stated the year of manufacture of the machine as 1998 and the estimated value of the machine at the year of manufacture as EURO 2,40,000/- based on the value of a New 5 colour screen printing machine with year of manufacture 1998 at 300,000 Euro FOB as revealed by the manufacturer. Based on that and considering the aspects that the impugned machine was not reconditioned and was found to be not maintained in good working condition and that therefore, overhauling and replacement of worn out parts would be necessary to put it in operation, they have considered 35 to 40% (38% assumed) of depreciated value towards missing parts like Encoder, Scanner, Safety guards etc., and one third of the net value towards overhauling and replacement of worn out parts, and have estimated the value of the machine at 37800 EURO ROB."
5. We find that the adjudicating authority had not considered the maximum value of Euro 52115. We are satisfied with the reasoning as given by the adjudicating authority. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that imposition of fine and penalty would require some modification.
6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the declared value as determined by the adjudicating authority. But the fine and penalty are reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) respectively. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 4