Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)M/S. Motor Industries Co. Ltd vs Cc (Sea Imp.), Chennai on 19 January, 2015
(i) Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs CC
2009 (244) ELT 4 (SC)
M/S Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs Visakhapatnam on 3 January, 2019
Hence, we are of the view that redetermination
of the declared value of the imported second hand
machinery by rejecting the declared value is clearly
untenable because from a reading of both the Order-in-
Original as well as Order-in-Appeal, it is clear that what is
rejected is only the declared value and not the local
Chartered Engineer's certificate. Hence, we are of the view
that the redetermination of declared value based solely on
local Chartered Engineer's certificate is not in order and in
this regard, our view stands supported by the decision/order
9
relied upon by the Appellant in the case of Mech. And Tech.
Vs Commissioner - 2009 (247) ELT 305 (Tri.-Chennai)
which decision/order has been applied by this very Bench in
the case of Barani Industries Vs Commissioner of
Customs - 2025 (10) TMI 829-CESTAT Chennai. To our
minds, the purpose of Board's circular issued in 2008 was
perhaps due to the practice in vogue at that relevant point in
time that there were perhaps imports of new machinery /
equipments, etc. in the guise of used / second hand
machinery / equipments, which required strict examination.
This perhaps mandated the obtaining of Load Port certificate
that would include all materials particulars of the goods in
question mainly indicates the year of manufacture, etc. In
today's advanced technology, perhaps the said circular
requires a re-look. We have perused the Load Port
certificate which contains all materials particulars of the
items in question and the crucial aspect that the said goods
were used / second hand stands established. Hence, as long
as all the particulars of the used machinery is concerned, are
available in the said Load Port certificate and the same also
does not indicate that the items in question are hazardous in
nature, the item in question also has a life span of some
years including an approximation as to the present market
10
value, the same should serve the purpose. A small
information which may not essentially dislodge the very
nature of the goods imported, cannot be fatal to the extent
of disbelieving the said Load Port certificate. In view of the
above, we do not find any justifiable reasons to accept the
redetermination of declared value and hence, the impugned
order cannot sustain.
1