Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Dolphin Enterprises vs Cc, Tuticorin on 24 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/289/2004
(Arising out of Order in Original No. 39/2004 dated 07.07.2004 and passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Tuticorin).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, 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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________________________
M/s. Dolphin Enterprises : Appellant
Vs.
CC, Tuticorin : Respondent
Appearance Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Adv., for the appellants Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 24.09.2010 Date of decision : 24.09.2010 ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants herein filed Bill of Entry in June 2004 for the import of one set of used offset printing machine with all standard accessories and declared the CIF value as Rs. 10,39,300/-. The foreign Chartered Engineers certificate stated that the age of the machine was approximately 20-25 yrs and that the price asked by the supplier appeared to be reasonable. In order to ascertain the correct age and value, a local Chartered Engineers Certificate was called for and vide Certificate dated 28.06.04, the local Chartered Engineer stated that the machine had been in use for a period of more than 15 years and had assessed the CIF value at Rs.21,50,000/- which was upheld by the Commissioner, who also ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- together with appropriate duty payable and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the importer. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the foreign Chartered Engineer has not independently valued the goods and only stated that the price asked for by the supplier is very reasonable. On the other hand, the local Chartered Engineer has independently valued the goods in his report. We also find that vide letter dated 01.07.04, the importer had agreed for enhancement of the value to Rs.21,50,000/-.
3. In the above circumstances, we uphold the loading of value and confiscation of fine and penalty and uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
4