M/S. Tiong Woon Project & Contracting ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Appeal No. C/697 to 700/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 20/2012/CAC/CC(I)/ APS/Gr.VA dated 31.3.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

================================================

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?

M/s. Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Ang Kah Hong Shri G. Maran Shri M. Nedumaran

Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Spl. Counsel for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 05.05.2015 Date of Decision: 05.05.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

All these appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 20/2012/CAC/CC(I)/APS/Gr.VA dated 31.3.2012. Since these appeals are directed against the very same order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The main appellant in these cases is Tiong Woon Project and Contracting (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed bills of entry for clearance of used crawler crane as imported, is declaring value as under:-

Bill of Entry No. Description of Goods CIF Value declared by the importer, based on report from M/s. SGS Singapore CIF Value ascertained by M/s Bureau Veritas Mumbai CIF Value Ascertained by applying depreciation on the value of identical machine in the year of manufacturing (in accordance with Board Circular 493/124/86-Cus dt. 19.11.1987)

923639/0 7.12.09

Used 550 tons Crawler Crane Dmag CC 2600 Year of manuf. 1994

SGD 20,00,000 Eqv. To Rs.6,78,00,000/-

SGD 27,00,000 Eqv. to Rs.9,15,30,000/-

SGD 21,60,000 Eqv to Rs.7,32,24,000/-

923640/0 7.12.09

Used 1000 tons Crawler Crane Dmag CC 6400 Year of manuf. 1994

SGD 40,00,000 Eqv. To Rs.13,56,00,000/-

SGD 52,00,000 Eqv. to Rs17,62,80,000/-

SGD 37,50,000 Eqv to Rs.12,71,25,000/-

Customs authorities not satisfied with the valuation as declared by the appellant undertook an investigation and appointed local chartered engineer to ascertain the correct value attributable to the cranes imported. The adjudicating authority rejected the value declared and adopted the value as been allowed at by the chartered engineers appointed by them. Noticing the difference in the declared value and the value ascertained, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of the differential Customs duty, interest thereof, confiscation of the cranes and release thereof on payment of redemption fine, and for imposition of penalties on the main appellant as well as other appellants. The main appellant contested the show cause notice on merits by denying the allegations and taking a plea that the valuation as done by the load Port report is the correct one, assuming the ascertain value by the local chartered engineer being correct, the adjudicating authority should have given the benefit of depreciation as envisaged in CBEC circular number 493/144/86  seaways dated 19/11/1987, and the difference in value in one case is more than the ascertain value and in one case marginal increase. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest, ordered for confiscation of the cranes and release thereof on payment of redemption fine, impose penalties on all the appellants.

3. Heard both sides at length and perused the records.

4. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that the declared value of the cranes in the bills of entry is incorrect and appointed local chartered engineer for ascertaining the correct value of the goods imported. In our considered view, there is no serious challenge from the main appellant as to the ascertainment of the value by the chartered engineer appointed by the Customs Department it is a case of the appellant that the ascertained value of the cranes by the chartered engineer, appointed by the Department as to the value of the cranes in the year of manufacture even if taken, depreciation at the rate of 70% of the value as ascertained by the chartered engineer, should have been given. It is a case of the learned Counsel that they would like to go back before the adjudicating authority and convince him that they are eligible for the depreciation as per boards circular. We find that the adjudicating authority has summararily discarded this plea of the appellants that they are eligible for the benefit of depreciation as per as per boards circular recording that it is simple procedure which has been intimated by the board. We do not agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority. In our view, boards circular of 1987 regarding the depreciation is to be followed by the adjudicating authority. We find strong force inthe contention of the learner Counsel that entire issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority on various other submissions made by the appellants before him as also the benefit of depreciation as per boards circular. Upholding the claim of the main appellant that benefit of depreciation as per board circular needs to be given, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh keeping all other issues open for both sides.

5. The impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural Justice. We record and direct the adjudicating authority that the de novo proceedings should be completed within 4 months of production of certified copy of this order to him.

6. All the appeals are disposed of as indicated hereinabove.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 2