Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

M/S. Compack Enterprises vs Cc, New Delhi on 3 April, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
M/S. Compack Enterprises vs Cc, New Delhi on 3 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (75) ECC 646, 2001 (131) ELT 590 Tri Del


ORDER

K. Sreedharan

1. Appellant imported a used four colour offset printing machine “Polygraph Planeta P44” of the size 710 X 1020mm, along with standard accessories and equipments. In the Bill of Entry the machine was declared to be of 1991 model and the value was shown at Rs.19,12,400. Model of the machine was doubted by the Department as also its value. To save demurrage and consequent expenditure as also its value. To save demurrage and consequent expenditure, the importer waived show cause notice and cleared the goods. Thereafter, Commissioner by Order-in-Original No.SKS/CC/ICD/TKD/110/2000 dated 24.11.2000 ordered confiscation of the goods for having violated the provisions contained in Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act with right to redeem on payment of Rs.1,50,000 and to pay penalty of Rs.50,000 under section 112(a) of the Act. Value of the machine was fixed at Rs. 27,06,000 and duty on that amount imposed.

2. While arguing the case before us, Learned Counsel representing the appellant fairly conceded that the machine was of 1984 model and so its import was against Import Trade Control Restrictions. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, the order confiscating the machine with option to redeem on payment of Rs. 1,50,000 is not under challenge. In view of this submission we uphbold the impugned order in so far as imported machine was ordered to be confiscated subject to the importers right to redeem it on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000. Imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000 on the importer under section 112 (a) is also confirmed.

3. Now the question that remains to be considered is regarding valuation of the machine. For ascertaining the year of manufacture and its value the Commissioner obtained the help of engineers from the Agents of the manufacturers of the machine in India, namely, M/s. Indo Polygraph Machinery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Engineer who inspected the machine found it to be of 1984 model, value of which was Rs. 22,60,000. The Commissioner in the impugned order observed –

“M/s. Indo-Polygraph Machinery Pvt. Ltd. after the inspection of impugned machine by their engineers, vide their certificate dated 2.11.2000 certified that switches and motors equipped on machine suggested that machine was manufactured in 1984 and the CIF value of new machine in 1984 was Indian Rupees 22,60,000/-.”

From this it is clear that in 1984 the value of the imported machine was Indian Rupees 22,60,000/- only.

4. Learned Commissioner appears to have taken into consideration the CIF value of similar machine imported as per Bill of Entry No.230209 dated 24.8.2000 and Bill of Entry No.230432 dated 28.8.2000 at ICT, Tughlakabad. The nature of the machine covered by these Bills of Entry is not stated in the impugned order. Nor were copies of those Bills of Entry supplied to the importer in this case. So, the Commissioner was not justified in relying on the value of the machine covered by those Bills of Entry in assessing the value of the machine imported in this case. In fixing the value of the machine he adopted a method of finding out the price of the machine in 1984 in pound sterling, then convert it into Indian Rupee at the present exchange rate and then find out the depreciation. This method could have been resorted to by him if the certificate issued by the Agent of the manufacturer showed the value in pound sterling 1984. Value of the machine in 1984 inn pound sterling was not assessed by the Commissioner or the Agent in India, either. In such a situation we are not in a position to agree with the method resorted to by the Commissioner. As per certificate issued by the manufacturers’ Agent in India, the value of this machine could be Indian Rupees 22,60,000/- in 1984. Import was in 2000. Depreciation, on account of its use for nearly 16 years, must be more than 50%, but the importer declared the value at Rs. 19,12,400. The value given by the importer can under no circumstances be considered to be meagre or below its actual value. So the Department can levy duty only on the value shown by the importer, namely, Rs.19,12,400/-.

5. In the result, the order impugned is confirmed subject to modification that the importer is liable to pay duty on the machine, value of which is fixed at Rs.19,12,400/-. Consequential relief, if any, due to the party must be extended.