2011 (10) TMI 312 - AT - Customs

Valuation & Redemption fine - Toyota land cruiser imported - chassis number, engine number as submitted in bill of entry were found different on investigation - Show cause issued declaring confiscation and rejection of declared value - Assessee argued price adopted from unknown website , no alternative method rule of valuation followed, not utilized services of Chartered Engineer, value arrived after including value of refurbished items - Held That - When variances were found in details furnished by assessee with investigation, relevant enquiries were made by department in the absence of price disclosed by the manufacturer, department relied upon details available in a website. Assessee not able to substantiate that the list price of 2780 model, at which he relied. Department has adopted reasonable means for arriving at the list price of 2004 model and given trade discounts and depreciation. Since the vehicle imported in 2007 is lying idle in department s custody, we feel that there is scope for some leniency. Redemption fine reduced from 2,00,000 to 1,00,000.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported vehicle, Confiscation of vehicle, Redemption fine, Penalty

Valuation of Imported Vehicle:
The appellant contested the valuation of the Toyota Land Cruiser car imported, arguing that the department failed to establish the model of the vehicle and used a price from an 'unknown website' instead of the manufacturer's website. The appellant claimed the vehicle should be assessed based on the price of a specific model from 2004, resulting in a lower value. However, the department defended the valuation method used, considering the discrepancies in details provided by the appellant. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and upheld the valuation determined by the Commissioner (Appeals), concluding that the department's approach was reasonable and appropriate.

Confiscation of Vehicle:
The original authority had confiscated the car due to discrepancies in details provided by the appellant, as revealed during investigation. While the appellant did not challenge the confiscation, the Tribunal disagreed with the department's plea for absolute confiscation. Despite the misdeclaration, the Tribunal found that absolute confiscation was not warranted, considering the nature of the offense. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation but rejected the department's request for absolute confiscation.

Redemption Fine and Penalty:
Regarding the redemption fine and penalty, the appellant sought leniency due to the vehicle being held by the department for several years. The Tribunal, despite not reducing the assessable value, acknowledged the circumstances and reduced the redemption fine from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 and the penalty from Rs.75,000 to Rs.50,000. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee on these terms, rejecting the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the valuation of the imported vehicle, rejected the plea for absolute confiscation, and reduced the redemption fine and penalty based on the unique circumstances of the case.