2017 (6) TMI 791 - AT - Customs

Re-export of imported vehicle - redemption to be negated - valuation - import of Nissan Safari 1999 - it was alleged that the vehicle was imported in violation of the conditions of the policy - Held that - the learned Commissioner has given sufficient reasons for allowing the appeal of the assessee for redeeming the confiscated vehicle on payment of fine of ₹ 1,50,000/- - it was held by him that The inconsistencies in the invoice having been enumerated by the original authority, it clearly does not mirror the transaction value In having resorted to Rule 9 after sequentially eliminating the applicability of Rule 4 to 8, and utilizing the red book price to arrive at the assessable value, whose validity has not been controverted in the appeal, he concurred with the adjudicating authority regarding the process followed for arriving at the re-determined value. He, therefore, rejected the appeal to the extent that it relates to assessable value. Impugned order upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Confiscation and redemption of imported vehicle
- Re-determination of value of the vehicle
- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation and redemption of imported vehicle:
The case involved the import of a used Nissan Safari vehicle by the respondent, which was found to be in violation of import licensing conditions. The Additional Commissioner, through an Order-in-Original, re-determined the value of the vehicle and imposed a penalty under Sections 111(d), 111(m), and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal partially, setting aside the order of absolute confiscation and permitting the redemption of the vehicle on payment of a fine of ?1,50,000. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the vehicle should have been re-exported instead of being allowed for redemption.

2. Re-determination of value of the vehicle:
The original authority re-determined the value of the vehicle at ?6,15,161 under Rule 9 of the Custom (Valuation) Rules 2007, rejecting the declared value by the importer. The Commissioner upheld this re-determination, stating that the invoice submitted by the importer did not reflect the true transaction value and was insufficient as proof of price paid. The Commissioner cited previous court decisions to support the rejection of the declared value and the methodology followed in arriving at the re-determined value. The Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in this reasoning and upheld the decision of the Commissioner.

3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):
The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Commissioner to allow the redemption of the confiscated vehicle. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the Revenue and noting the absence of representation from the assessee, upheld the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had provided sufficient reasons for allowing the redemption of the vehicle on payment of the fine, as detailed in para 9 of the impugned order. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, thereby affirming the decision to permit redemption of the vehicle.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to allow the redemption of the imported vehicle on payment of a fine, based on the re-determination of the vehicle's value and the insufficiency of the submitted invoice as proof of price paid. The Tribunal found no legal basis to overturn the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby affirming the redemption of the vehicle.