Page 286 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

268 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Expert opinion - Technical opinion tendered by technically qualified
person - Contrary stand not to be taken in absence of any evidence to contra-
dict the finding of the technical expert. [para 23]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Vicco Laboratories — 2005 (179) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) — Referred ............................... [Para 5]
Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (307) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal) — Referred ........ [Para 5]
Inter Continental (India) v. Union of India — 2003 (154) E.L.T. 37 (Guj.) — Relied on ................. [Para 23]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative
(DR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.L. Mahar, Member (T)]. - The brief facts of the matter are
that the appellant No. I was appointed a distributor of “Segways” manufactured
and patented by M/s. Segways Inc., U.S.A. for Indian territory on 1-2-2010. The
agreement authorized the appellant No. I as the distributor for Segway and
thereafter have been revalidated on 1-11-2012 and 19-3-2015. As per the agree-
ments, the appellant are required to sale the Segway products/Segway personal
transport products purchased from M/s. Segway Inc., U.S.A. The appellant have
been importing ‘Segway’ product in CKD condition in the form of very assem-
blies such as power assembly, transmission assembly, wheel assembly etc. as
well as Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi wherein they have filed bills of entry for
assessment and clearance of the imported consignment declaring the product as
“CKD Parts of electrically operated two wheeler/personal transport/lithium
ION battery for captive use”. The product has been classified under Customs
Tariff Heading 8714 99 90/8714 40 11 etc. They have also claimed benefit of Noti-
fication No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-2-2002 (Sl. No. 345) and Notification No.
12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 (Sl. No. 443 and 444). The department working on
an intelligence has initiated investigations against the appellant for misdeclara-
tion of the product at the time of import and have entertained a view that the
importer/appellant have imported a complete units of the Segway personal
transport self-balancing vehicle in CKD condition. However, at the time of the
import, they have misdeclared the same as “CKD parts of personal
transport/electrically operated two wheelers for captive use and have mis-
classified the same under Customs Tariff Heading 8714 99 90 and thereby has
evaded huge amounts of customs duty. It’s a matter of record that during the
course of investigation, the Departmental officer have visited the business prem-
ises of the appellant and the appellant was asked to produce the sample of the
imported consignments. Shri Rony Abraham (appellant No. II) was present at the
time of the visit of the DRI officers at their business premises. On the request of
the DRI officers, Shri Rony Abraham presented sample of the imported vehi-
cle/item before one Shri Vinod Soorma, Chartered Engineer who was appointed
by the Department for examining the sample of the imported consignment. Shri
Vinod Soorma, Chartered Engineer after examination of the goods and submit-
ted his report on 1-8-2016 saying that :
“(i) This is to certify that I have inspected/examined the following
units, which were imported by M/s. Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
The same were found in the form of assemblies of; (a) transmission as-
sembly, (b) power base assembly (without batteries); (c) wheel assembly
with tyre (d) info key [incomplete form].
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  286