Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Prima-facie, on-going through the impugned order, we find that the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not, ex-facie, illegal or without jurisdiction. The Revenue's Stay Petition being filed in a routine and mechanical manner and devoid of merit, is rejected.

3. At this stage, both the parties have agreed to decide the appeal finally today itself. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld.Commissioner (Appeal) held that there is no license required for import of old and used Digital Multifunction Printer before 28.02.2013 and the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer's Certificate without any corroborative evidence.

5. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported old and used Digital Multifunction Printer and filed various bills of entry. The goods of the respondent were examined in the presence of Customs Officials, Chartered Engineer and representative of the appellant and found to be old and used having residual life of more than six years and the said machines were found to be minor reconditioning and values were assessed on the enhanced value as compared to declared value. The said value was arrived by Chartered Engineer after inspection and production of market value recommendations based on several aspects like useful life of machines/Make & Model/technology/country of origin/physical condition/comparison with similar goods imported in past/internet information/reconditioning etc.. It was held that the said consignment being second hand was restricted item in terms of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009 - 2014 and Para 2.33 & 2.33A of HBP and could be imported against valid license. On appeal, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) held that for the impugned goods, no license is required in terms of restrictions made under Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and Para 2.33 and 2.33A of HB Procedure. It was also held that the value can not be enhanced based on Chartered Engineer's Valuation. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.