V. Padmanabhan ORDER
1. The present appeal is against the OIO No. 5409/2006 dt. 24.8.2006.
2. Appellant imported one set of used offset printing machine along with standard accessories from M/s. Benelux International Trading BVBA, Belgium and declared the transaction value of GBP 7500 (CIF) (equivalent to Rs. 5,67,375) and filed necessary Bill of Entry No. 481117 dt. 16.04.2003. Along with the Bill of Entry, importer enclosed an overseas Chartered Engineer certificate dt. 20.01.2003 issued by Graphic Consult N.V./S.A., Belgium. The Docks Intelligence Unit, Custom House, Chennai took up the consignment for investigation on receipt of intelligence regarding alleged under valuation. Suspecting the value, goods were got examined by a local Chartered Engineer, M/s. Superintendence Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. who vide report dt. 24.04.2003 assessed the value of the goods at GBP 11,900.00 (CIF) (equivalent to Rs. 21,40,895/-). The goods were also got examined by another Chartered Engineer M/s. SGS India Private Ltd. who assessed the value at GBP 29000.00 (CIF). Since the goods were more than 10 years old, a show cause notice was issued proposing re-assessment of the value of the imported goods as well as confiscation thereof for violation of ITC regulations. After due process of adjudication, learned Commissioner ordered for enhancement of value of the imported goods in terms of local Chartered Engineer opinion and demanded differential duty of Rs. 8,07,341/-. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal has been filed.
3. With the above back ground, we heard Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant as well as Shri B. Balamurugan, Ld. D.R.
4. The learned Advocate argued that customs department had no valid reason for disregarding the overseas Chartered Engineer certificate produced at the time of import. The genuineness of the certificate has not been doubted or disapproved. The valuation of goods by the local Chartered Engineer has been done arbitrarily without even inspecting the imported goods. He further submitted that the load port Chartered Engineer gives the year of make of the machines, the value of goods at the time of manufacture as well as value at the time of export. The import invoice as well as Chartered Engineer certificate bears the stamp of State Bank of Patiala evidencing that only the invoice amount has been paid to the overseas supplier. Consequently, he argued that declared value merits acceptance. He also relied upon the Tribunal in the case of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills Vs. CC Tuticorin MANU/CC/0141/2004 : 2004 (172) ELT 394 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein the Tribunal has held that opinion of one expert cannot be rejected on the basis of another expert unless there is sufficient independent reason for such rejection. The said decision has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (182) ELT A92 (SC).
5. The Ld. D.R. supported the impugned order. He argued that learned Commissioner in the impugned order has explained the sufficient reasons for rejecting the load port Chartered Engineer. It has been held that Chartered Engineer who has given the certificate is not on the list of authorized Chartered Engineers notified by D.G.F.T. The certificate also suffers from several deficiencies. Hence it has been rightly disregarded by the adjudicating authority. He further argued that the valuation of imported goods is required to be determined by customs authorities on the basis of various factors and not only on the basis of amount paid to the exporter.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Bill of Entry has been filed for clearance of the imported used goods along with a Chartered Engineer certificate from the load port, dt. 20.01.200........