2017 (12) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

N/N. 21/2002-CUS dated 01/03/2002 - Revenue held a view that the imported car was cleared with mis-declaration of its nature and value. It was alleged that the car was not a new one and, as such, the concession available to the new cars should not have been extended to the same - Held that - on perusal of order passed by the lower authority, no evidence is coming out to hold this vehicle is a used one. Admittedly vehicle is imported into UK on 15/01/2009. There is no evidence that the prior to that date the vehicle has been used. The same is shipped to India on 27/01/2009 i.e. within two weeks of its importation into UK. In a similar situation, we note that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Jay Polychem India Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that considering the proximity of the dates involved in the shipment of the vehicle, the same cannot be considered as second hand at the time of import - in the present case there is no evidence of actual usage of the vehicle except an inference that the same has been registered only on 15/01/2009 when the manufacture in Japan is in August 2008. Valuation - rejection of value - similar/identical goods - Held that - In the present case the appellant is said to have sold the car with much higher price in India. This was given as one of the main reason for rejecting the declared value. The import value cannot be inferred or determined based on sale value, if any, in India. Admittedly, similar/identical goods have been imported during the period of dispute and were subjected to assessment by the customs authorities - we direct the Original Authority to re-determine the value, in case the rejection of transaction value is justified, by fresh consideration of the facts. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of nature and value of imported car.
2. Differential duty and penalties imposed.
3. Confiscation of imported vehicle.
4. Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.
5. Assessment of imported vehicle as new or used.
6. Valuation of the imported vehicle.
7. Legal tenability of relying on internet value for valuation.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the mis-declaration of the nature and value of an imported car, leading to differential duty and penalties being imposed on the appellants. The imported car, a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 Series V8 4.5 D4-D RHD Model 2008, was cleared based on a declared value of &8377; 32,37,557/- under Notification 21/2002-CUS dated 01/03/2002. However, after investigations, it was alleged that the car was not new as declared, and the value was enhanced based on manufacturer data available online. The Original Authority upheld the Revenue's views, imposing a differential duty of &8377; 21,76,422/- and penalties on the main and second appellants, with an option to redeem the confiscated vehicle on payment of a fine.

2. The appellants argued that the imported vehicle should be considered new, as it was manufactured in August 2008, imported into the UK on 15/01/2009, and registered on the same day, before being shipped to India. They contended that the Customs authorities in the UK verified the import value, and relying solely on internet prices for valuation was legally untenable. The learned AR supported the lower authorities, claiming that the vehicle was not new and the valuation based on manufacturer data was justified.

3. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the imported vehicle was used, as it was registered in the UK on 15/01/2009 and shipped to India shortly after. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the proximity of dates did not indicate the vehicle was second-hand at the time of import, especially when there was no evidence of prior usage. The Customs in the UK had also assessed the vehicle as new, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the lower authorities' findings on the vehicle's usage were not sustainable.

4. Regarding valuation, the Tribunal noted that rejecting the invoice value and relying solely on internet prices required recording reasons and following Valuation Rules. The appellant's sale of the car in India at a higher price was not sufficient grounds to reject the declared value. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to re-determine the value, considering comparable goods and providing the appellant an opportunity to present their case, remanding the matter for a fresh decision within two months.

5. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand for a reassessment of the declared value of the imported car and related issues, emphasizing the need for a clear finding on mis-declaration of value and violation of import policy, if any.