TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. In the impugned order, the first appellate authority has referred to an alleged e-mail and an alleged original sale invoice raised by the Japanese dealer on the UK dealer, which according to the first authority, justify the fixing of assessable value at ₹49, 84, 163. Further, the Ld. first appellate authority has held that since the vehicle is held to be a new one, the same would also entitle the appellant for concessional rate of BCD. We have seen the invoices, one which was raised on the Broker at UK by the Japanese dealer and the other one which was raised by the UK Broker on the appellant; both are for two different cars; one refers to Ultimate Silver colour car carrying an invoice amount of 8,900,000 Yen and the other ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of the car at US dollars 63,000. Upon import of the same on arrival in India, the appellant filed a bill of entry dated 03.11.2008, which was subjected to examination and the proper officer of customs at the time of import assessed the value of the car at ₹32, 06, 952. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant had availed concessional duty benefit in terms of serial number 344(2) of Notification No.21/2002 Cus dated 01.03.2002. The car was thus assessed and permitted to be cleared upon the appellant remitting the duty at the rate of 60%. 2. It appears that there was an investigation into the imports of high-end cars, by the officers of DRI, Ahmedabad. During the course of investigation, statements from Mr.Alberto Beston ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest, and (ii) whether the appellant is liable to be visited with penalties under Sections114A 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962? 4. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Sathyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner, appeared for the department. 5. Having heard both sides, we have also carefully perused the orders of both the authorities below and the documents filed along with the appeal memo. 5.1 We find from the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority has referred to the website of the car manufacturer, internet value, etc. to determine the assessable value of the car which was imported. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has also referred to the statement of Alberto, but he has not considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through investigation/records of the buyer or the seller or the dealer as to whether there was any flow of consideration over and above the declared value by the appellant. Apparently, no such exercise seems to be done as nothing is placed before us, rather reliance is solely placed on an e-mail correspondence obtained, not by the appellant but by the DRI itself. 8. The other aspect which perhaps influenced the Original Authority for computing/re-determining the assessable value in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 9, was the value at which the car was allegedly purchased by M/s. Hiperformance cars, UK at USD 91, 937 [8,900,000 Yen converted into USD]. To this, an element of profit/commission/brokerage was added since revenue assumed that M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
