2013 (11) TMI 1427 - AT - Customs

Import of 2003 Model Volkswagan Beetle Cabriolet Car - Valuation of goods - Held that - importer/their representative were unable to provide the amount of VAT paid in this case nor any evidence for the same could be produced. Further the valuation of the goods as shown in the Kelley Blue Book held as basis for valuation by the Commissioner (Appeals) happens to reflect the Base Price (Factory Price) only. In these circumstances we feel that to arrive on value of the impugned car the case should be remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) at this stage itself for deciding the case afresh after verifying of the said facts. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct him to decide the case afresh after considering the evidences produced by the Revenue. Before deciding the case the Commissioner (Appeals) shall also make available to the Respondent s copy of the references made to the Mumbai Customs and the reply received from them. It is needless to mention that adequate opportunity of hearing should be given to the Respondent before passing the order - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value determination of imported car, Violation of import policy conditions, Confiscation of goods, Reduction of Redemption fine and penalty, Evidence requirement for VAT deduction, Rejection of transaction value, Remand for fresh decision.

Assessable value determination of imported car:
The dispute centered around the assessable value of a 2003 Model Volkswagen Beetle Cabriolet Car imported in 2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared value based on the World Car Guide 2003 inclusive of VAT, trade discount, and depreciation calculations. The Commissioner relied on the Kelly Blue Book for valuation, resulting in a value close to the declared amount. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld the declared value for duty assessment and reduced the fine and penalty.

Violation of import policy conditions:
The case involved an individual importing a used car without fulfilling the conditions of the foreign trade policy prevalent at the time. The Passenger should have stayed abroad for two years, and the car should have been in his possession for one year. Failure to meet these conditions raised concerns about the confiscation of the goods for violating the import policy.

Confiscation of goods, Reduction of Redemption fine and penalty:
Initially, the Joint Commissioner enhanced the value of the imported car, confiscated it, and imposed a Redemption fine and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, accepting the declared value and reducing the Redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue contended that the imposed fine and penalty were appropriate given the valuation discrepancies and import policy violations.

Evidence requirement for VAT deduction, Rejection of transaction value:
The Revenue argued that the importer failed to provide evidence of VAT paid, justifying the denial of VAT deduction for assessment purposes. Additionally, the Revenue emphasized the correct valuation based on the World Car Guide and the Mumbai Customs reference, highlighting the need to reject the transaction value due to valuation discrepancies and import policy violations.

Remand for fresh decision:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by way of remand, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The case was directed to be reconsidered after verifying facts and evidence, with both parties given the opportunity to present their case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to provide the Respondent with relevant references from Mumbai Customs and ensure a fair hearing before reaching a new decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the assessable value determination, import policy violations, confiscation of goods, evidence requirements, and the remand for a fresh decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and arguments presented by both parties.