2001 (10) TMI 633 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the application for settlement.
2. Valuation of the imported car.
3. Eligibility for immunity from prosecution and penalty.
4. Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the application for settlement:
The applicants, represented by Shri D.N. Mehta, sought the settlement of a case involving the importation of a car under ITC Public Notice No. 3(PL)/97-2002. The Revenue objected to the admission of the case, arguing that the applicant had not come with clean hands and had not provided valid documentary evidence to support the claimed lower duty liability. Despite these objections, the Commission found that the applicant had fulfilled the provisions of Section 127(B) of the Customs Act and admitted the application. The applicant was ordered to pay the admitted duty amount declared in the Bill of Entry plus an additional amount within 30 days and to submit evidence of payment. The Revenue was directed to provide evidence supporting their valuation of the car.

2. Valuation of the imported car:
The main contention was the correct valuation of the imported Mercedes Benz Car C-180. The applicant declared the value of the car as UK lb21370 and freight as lb600, which converted to Rs. 16,15,141/-, but declared the assessable value in Indian rupees as Rs. 9,50,088/-. The applicant claimed various discounts and depreciation, which were not admissible. The Commission found that the applicant did not make a correct declaration about the car's value, aiming to evade customs duties. The Commission referred to the Parker's Guide and found that the declared price corresponded to the guide's price. The assessable value was calculated after allowing a 15% trade discount, resulting in a duty payable of Rs. 14,57,215/-.

3. Eligibility for immunity from prosecution and penalty:
The applicant sought immunity under Section 127H of the Customs Act. The Commission noted that the applicant had cooperated with the proceedings and accepted his guilt. Considering the applicant's cooperation and the nature of the dispute (valuation of the car without contraband goods), the Commission granted immunity from prosecution and penalty under the Customs Act.

4. Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation:
The car was imported in contravention of the ITC Public Notice, and the applicant manipulated documents to make it appear validly importable. The Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation, considering the liability to confiscation and the applicant's admission of guilt.

Conclusion:
The case was settled with the applicant required to pay a total duty amount of Rs. 14,57,215/- and a fine of Rs. 7.25 lakhs. The applicant had already paid Rs. 12,45,838/-, and the balance duty and fine were to be paid within 30 days. Upon payment, the car would be released to the applicant or his Power of Attorney holder. The applicant was granted immunity from penal liability and prosecution under the Customs Act. The settlement would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

← Previous Next →