2011 (1) TMI 1014 - AT - Customs

Valuation of the vehicles - assessee had purchased the vehicles in connection with transfer of their residence to India - invoices issued by those dealers were obviously local sale invoices, but these invoices did not show the address of the buyers - Held that - If it was the intention of the assesse to purchase brand new cars for the purpose of importation into India in connection with transfer of their residence, they should ordinarily have obtained the invoices with all the relevant particulars mentioned thereon - instructions contained in the relevant circulars of CBEC were also followed by the original authority in determining the assessable value of the vehicles. The original authority also examined whether any depreciation of value could be allowed, and found valid reason not to allow such depreciation, on the facts of the case. authority further allowed 20% discount on the assessable value determined by the lower authority. As a matter of fact, Commissioner (Appeals) has been fair enough to grant reasonable relief to the assessees by taking into account relevant factors like demurrages, adverse weather conditions etc, even after the above discount, the assessable value of the subject-cars remains far above the declared value, there can be no grievance for the Revenue, appeals stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No.17/01 Cus admissibility for importers.
2. Rejection of transaction value by assessing authority.
3. Valuation of imported vehicles for duty assessment.
4. Grant of discount by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The importers had claimed the benefit of Notification No.17/01 Cus for importing two cars from UAE. The vehicles were not registered before export to India and were considered brand new models. The assessing authority disputed this claim based on the cars' mileage. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of the Notification, considering factors like demurrages and adverse weather conditions, but did not grant waiver of demurrage charges. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the vehicles being unregistered before export supported their new status, and no reason was found to disagree with the lower appellate authority's decision.

2. The importers challenged the rejection of the transaction value by the assessing authority. They argued that the declared value based on supplier's invoice was rejected without proper reason and that the value could only be rejected under specific Customs Valuation Rules. The importers contended that no contemporary imports of identical vehicles were found to justify the higher assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value, stating that the assessing authority had valid reasons for determining the assessable value based on various factors and international price lists.

3. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on two grounds: the inadmissibility of the Notification benefit due to the vehicles not being new or unregistered, and the questionable discount granted by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the vehicles were indeed new as they were not registered before export, and the Commissioner's decision to grant a discount based on various factors was justified. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted a 20% discount on the assessable value of the vehicles considering factors like demurrages and adverse weather conditions. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision fair and reasonable, considering all relevant aspects. Despite the discount, the assessable value remained higher than the declared value, leading the Tribunal to conclude that there was no grievance for the Revenue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed, and the impugned orders were sustained.