Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs
- Case No.Appeal No.C/267/2004
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the declared invoice value of imported second-hand goods is not supported by corroborative evidence such as the invoice and a Chartered Engineer's certificate from the exporting country showing a value consistent with the year of manufacture and usage, the declared value may be rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the value determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5, 6 and 7, taking into account the remaining life of the goods and the value that could have been declared had supporting evidence been produced.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/267/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.32/2004 dt. 11.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin]
Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision : 30.04.2015
FINAL ORDER No.40476/2015
Per D.N. Panda
The only question in this appeal is whether the import of the second hand looms without any corroborative evidence of valuation thereof calls for acceptance of the declared value or such value to be determined in accordance with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
2. The appellants submission is that looms being old and used, it has very low value which is quite possible and cannot be denied.
3. On the other hand, Ld. DR says that nothing to disagree with appellant. But it has to substantiate from the invoice and from the Chartered Engineer certificate of exporting county that value declared is inconsonance with the year of manufacture as well as usage. But that particular ingredient could not be satisfied. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly examined the essential ingredients of law relating to valuation in para 5 of his order. We notice that the invoice value was not acceptable for the reason that Rule 10(A) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was attracted to the case appropriately. He has gone by sequential rules of 5,6 & 7 to determine the value. He has not only considered the life of the goods but also the possible value which could have been had there been a declaration with evidence. Therefore, it is impracticable to discard the valuation he has recorded in para-7 of his order. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
4. We may add that appellant exported the goods which are prohibitory in nature. There is also no scope at all to entertain the appeal of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs 2
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