Commissioner Of Customs (G) Mumbai vs M/S. Digitech Photocopiers
- CitationAppeal No. C/523/2004-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a customs valuation is enhanced on the basis only of the dock appraiser's identification of the goods, without any comparable value of similar goods having been available and without any market verification, the enhancement is not sustainable in law. Where a redemption fine and penalty are sought to be fixed without any determination of the importer's margin of profit and without consideration of the demurrage and container detention charges incurred, the assessment of the redemption fine and penalty is not sustainable, and the appellate authority is right to reduce them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2004(JNCH) dt. 26.02.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
=============================================================
Commissioner of Customs (G) Mumbai :
Appellant
VS
M/s. Digitech Photocopiers :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri M.K. Mall Assistant Commissioner, (A.R.) for Appellant
None for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing :19/08/2015 Date of decision : 19/08/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : P.S. Pruthi
Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dt. 26.2.2004.
2. In this case the respondent imported Old and Used goods. The allegation is that the prices declared were very low. We find from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that no comparable value of similar goods was available nor was any market verification done. The valuation was conducted by the Dock Appraiser only on the basis of identification. Therefore, the enhancement in the value is not sustainable in law. Similarly, as regards redemption fine the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that neither was the Margin of Profit determined nor the huge amount of demurrage and container detention charges of more than Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) was taken into consideration. In these circumstances, the Commissioner reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and penalty to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).
3. We find the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is based on sound reasoning. We find no reason to disagree with the order.
4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in court)
(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)
(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)
SM.
2 Appeal No.C/523/2004-Mum
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free