2011 (3) TMI 214 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Misdeclaration of value and country of manufacture - An option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.4 lakhs has been given and penalty of Rs.2.50 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 - As per import policy the car is to be imported from the country of manufacture and in the present case the country of manufacture was Japan and the car imported from United Kingdom - The contention of the appellant is that subsequent to the import of the car in December 2008 the import policy amended to the effect where the condition that it shall be imported from the country of manufacturer was deleted As per the import policy the car is to be imported from the country of manufacturer hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby it is held that there is violation of import policy - redemption fine is also reasonable in view of the mis-declaration in respect of value & country of origin and does not call for any reduction - decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhanced value and confiscation of imported car due to misdeclaration.
2. Appellant's contention of the car being manufactured in Belgium and imported from the U.K.
3. Dispute over the declared value of the car.
4. Alleged violation of import policy by importing the car from the U.K instead of the country of manufacture.
5. Comparison of the declared value with another import of the same model from the U.K.
6. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the order enhancing the value and confiscating the imported car, arguing that it was manufactured in Belgium and imported from the U.K. However, the tribunal found that the car, a Lexus Hybrid LS 600 HL Rt Hand drive, was originally manufactured in Japan, with some enhancements in Belgium before being sold in the U.K. The tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the import policy mandates importing cars from their country of manufacture, thereby rejecting the appellant's argument.

2. Regarding the declared value of the car, the appellant claimed that a similar model had been imported previously with the same declared value, which was accepted by customs authorities. However, the tribunal noted that the value was enhanced based on another import of the same model from the U.K. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and upheld the decision to enhance the value.

3. The Revenue contended that the car was originally manufactured in Japan, underwent enhancements in Belgium, and was sold in the U.K. The appellant then purchased the car from the U.K, violating the import policy requiring cars to be imported from their country of manufacture. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that the car was not imported from the country of manufacture, thus upholding the decision of violation of import policy.

4. In terms of the redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the tribunal deemed the redemption fine reasonable considering the misdeclaration of value and country of origin. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Customs.