2017 (2) TMI 607 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - penalty - undervaluation - import of brand new car of Chrysler 300C 3.0CRD V6 Saloon SRT - car in dispute was manufactured in Austria but was imported from the United Kingdom - Held that - On the official website of the car manufacturer, the value of the identical model was shown as 32505 British Pound. Thus, it is evident that the car was imported by producing the Bill of Entry of under-valuation - the Department has taken the price of the impugned car as was available on the manufacturer. When it is so, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee-Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of new cars, under-valuation of imported car, confiscation under Customs Act, penalty imposition, non-issuance of show cause notice, determination of car value, differential duty amount, interest, excessive fine and penalty, redemption fine imposition, application of Customs Valuation Rules, reliance on case laws, justification for charging difference of duty, penalty, and interest.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Import of new cars
The appellant imported a new Chrysler car from the UK, which was manufactured in Austria. The car was imported in contravention of the conditions specified in the Import Policy of the Government of India, leading to potential confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Under-valuation of imported car
The appellant declared the assessable value of the imported car as £2330, equivalent to ?20,02,881. However, the identical model's value on the manufacturer's website was £32505, indicating potential under-valuation. The Department considered the manufacturer's price and determined the value of the car accordingly.

Issue 3: Confiscation under Customs Act and penalty imposition
The appellant was held liable for confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and penalty imposition under Section 112 of the same Act. The Department re-determined the car's value as ?34,66,552, demanding a differential duty of ?16,70,083 under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest and levied penalties.

Issue 4: Non-issuance of show cause notice
The appellant argued that no show cause notice was issued as per the Tribunal's directions. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had stated in a letter that they did not require a show cause notice, and the appellant did not cooperate with the authorities. The Tribunal deemed the other allegations as general and not substantial.

Issue 5: Justification for charges and reliance on case laws
The Tribunal found justification for charging the difference in duty, penalty, and interest based on the circumstances of the case. The case laws cited by the appellant's counsel were considered distinguishable in the context of the present case, and the impugned order was sustained in its entirety.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the impugned order regarding the determination of car value, differential duty amount, penalty imposition, and interest charges. The decision was pronounced in open court on 06.01.2017.