JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of one Solna 225, 2
colour offset printing machine and one 45 inch guillotine. Both were
declared to be second hand. Examination of the consignment revealed the
presence in addition of these two machines of one more second hand Solna
two colour off set machine. Proceedings were initiated against the
appellant proposing among other things, to enhance the value of these
machines. The order of the Additional Collector of Customs passed in
adjudication resulted in such enhancement. On appeal from this order, the
Tribunal accepted the contentions of the importer that valuation of second
hand machinery ought not to be based on other second hand machinery
unless it was shown that it was identical in characteristic and use. The
order read as follows: “In view of teh assessable value of imported goods
comprising of two second hand “Solna 225- Two Colour offset printing
machine” one old “guillotine 45 inch” Polar 115 Electromat” machine was
determinable on the basis of the unit price of each type of machine as
indicated in supplier’ invoice. Since the case records did not contain
invoice and the suppliers’ invoice. Since the case records did not contain
invoice and the Chartered Engineers certificate, we remand the case to the
Assistant Collector for determinign the assessable value of the machines
and consequential relief to the appellant,s if any”. By a subsequent order,
the Tribunal substituted the word “Additonal Collector” for the word
“Asst. Collector” appearing in the above extract.
2. The importer accordingly approached the Custom House. The Dy.
Commissioner of Customs passed an order on 4.4.96. In that order he
determined the value of the guillotine to be 5030.50 and solna 225
machine to be 9700 each, (totaling 19,400) and ordered consequential
relief subject to the provisons contained in Section 27(2) of the Act. In the
light of these last observations, notice was issued proposing to deny the
refund of duty which would otherwise be due. Adjudicating on that notice,
the Additonal Commissioner found that the incidence of duty had not been
passed on and ordered refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare
Fund. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner
(Appeals) confirming these orders.
3. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant relates to the
valuation of the Solna machines. In determining the value, the Dy.
Commissioner has gone by the price in the invoice of one Solna machine to
be 9700 pounds and applied it. It is contended before us that, by a
subsequent corrigendum the supplier of the machine has said that the first
invoice contained a typographical error and that the invoice should have
read two machines instead of one. The invoice in two places mentioned
one printing machine. The general declaration in it of “Printing machinery
(second hand)” mentions one Solna 225 machine. Further down, there is a
specific entry for one Solna 225 machine packed in cases 3, 4, 5 and 6. The
explanation offered for the mistake by the supplier is that the letter of credit
which was opened at the instance of the importer “incorrectly’ read one
machine instead of two. It is now the claim before us that the letter of
credit incorrectly mentioned one machine, and not two. Such an absurd
contention has to be dismissed. We therefore conclude that the so-called
correction is worthless.
4. The next contention that the value indicated in the certificate of the
chartered engineer who examined the goods and certified them to be second
hand machinery (as required by the Import Policy) of 4850 ought to be
accepted again requires dismissal. The Tribunal has ordered valuation on
the basis of the invoice and not based on any other document.
5. We therefore find no ground for interference with the value accepted
by the Dy. Commissioner.
6. Counsel for the appellant then contended that he would be able to
show that the incidence of duty, of which the refund would be otherwise
due had not been passed on the requested time to produce documents in
support of his contention. The matter was therefore adjourned to
27.9.2001. On that date, the counsel conceded that he has been unable to
obtain such document. It would then follow that the finding that the refund
is payable, not to be appellant, but to the credit of Consumer Welfare Fund
for the reason that it has not been shown to any other person, has to be
confirmed.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.