Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (4) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clared as 2003 model. He was abroad for more than 10 years and arrived at India on 22-3-06 for permanent settlement. The invoice value declared was Rs. 3 lakhs (as shown in para 2 of the Adjudication Order). The Commissioner has stated that in the Bill of Entry, the invoice number is shown as nil dated 26-6-2006. But it is not clear while reading the Order-in-Original whether invoice itself was produced. We only want to indicate that no care is being taken while drafting adjudication order. The adjudication authority has stated that subsequently, the importer produced a receipt voucher No. 0042, dated 9-8-06 from M/s. Treasured Used car LLC for an amount of US $ 45,000/-. The above value is claimed as transaction value. Since, the above-men .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority. They contest the confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty also. 3. We heard both sides. There are two issues in this appeal. As per the Foreign Trade Policy, the importer should have been in possession of the car abroad for at least one year prior to its import. In the present case, this condition has not been complied with and the appellant has not contested this violation. Therefore, the Commissioner has held that the car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the F.T. (D R) Act, 1992. Therefore, the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the above findings, the confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... justified the valuation of the car based on the list price. He has stated that the department has copy of price list of Mercedes Benz of different models according to which the list price of SL 5 model of 2003 make is Euro 109,100. Further, the department made a reference to M/s. Daimler Chryster India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. The authorized dealer of Mercedes Benz who has confirmed the Chasis No. and other particulars of the vehicle. They had given the list price as Euro 107,100 which is very close to the list price proposed by the department. The Commissioner has stated that the price furnished by the authorized dealer has more evidentiary value than the Blue Book value claimed by the importer. 5. The appellant has contended that the adjudica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .)] 6. Sukvinder Singh v. CC, Mumbai (F.O No. M/272/05, dated 1-9-2005) [2006 (205) E.L.T. 467 (Tribunal)] The appellant has further stated that the copy of the list price relied on by the department was never given to the appellant and also there is no evidence that such price is meant for export into India. Another grievance of the appellant is that in spite of specific finding in the impugned order that in this type of luxury cars accessories are standard fitting, an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- has been added to CIF value as cost of extra fitting and refurbishing. 7. After going through the entire records of the case we find that the appellant cannot claim that his transaction value was rejected. First of all, initially a ridiculo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. No addition towards extra fittings and refurbishment is to be made. Taking the above as basis, assessment can be made in the usual manner after allowing for depreciation. The Commissioner has brought out clearly in the adjudication order that the value declared does not represent the correct transaction value. Therefore, non-mentioning of confiscability under Section 111(m) is not very material to the case. The case laws cited can not rescue the appellant, as he failed to produce correct value at the time of import. Having regard to the fact that the car is lying in the custody of Customs Department for a long time and the appellant had approached the Kerala High Court for relief, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakhs only. Since .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates