From year of introduction alone it cannot be concluded that machine is not manufactured in previous year - allegation of under valuation not sustainable: CESTAT
THE respondent imported one set of used Noritsu Minilab system consisting of one Printer Processor Model QSS2211V and one Film Processor Model QSF430L with standard accessories with a declared value of US $7000. The respondent declared the year of manufacture as 1995. On examination of the goods, the Customs authorities opined that the machine appeared to be less than ten years old and the residual life is more than five years.
Consequently, proceedings were initiated on the ground of under-valuation. The adjudicating authority loaded the value, ordered for confiscation of the machine and demanded differential duty and also imposed penalty.
As the Commissioner (A) set aside the order, the Revenue is aggrieved and has filed an appeal before the CESTAT. The year was 2004.
The matter was heard recently but the respondent was not around.
The primary argument of the Revenue is that since the model of the impugned machine was introduced in the year 1996, the year of manufacture could not have been 1995 as claimed by the importer; it is clear from the documents retrieved from the respondent's Delhi office that the model was introduced in the year 1996.
The Bench held -
"5. …The value in this case has been loaded on the basis that on physical appearance the machine appears to be less than 10 years old and the residual life is more than 5 years. Undisputedly, the examination was carried out by the officers present in the dock and the same has been accepted without any corroboratory evidence. We further find that in the letter of the respondent dated 6.3.2003, it is clearly mentioned that the year of manufacture is 1995. From the year of introduction alone it cannot be concluded that the machine is not manufactured in the previous year. Therefore, merely on presumption and assumption it cannot be said that the machine is less than 10 years old. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue…"
The Revenue appeal was dismissed.