2018 (3) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported vehicle - import of one unit of second hand used Mitsubishi Pajero Vehicle with engine capacity of 2835 CC and 1993 model under Transfer of Residence facility - allowance of Depreciation - Held that - the Tribunal had given directions to grant 70% depreciation on the value of the car while determining its assessable value. Since that Tribunal order has not been stayed or set aside by a higher appellate forum, the order became final for all purposes and the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to comply the directions therein in toto - the Commissioner (Appeals) has granted only 52% depreciation which is not in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal. The 70% depreciation has to be allowed on the value of the vehicle - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessable value determination
- Depreciation percentage
- Confiscation of vehicle
- Redemption fine and penalty

Assessable value determination:
The appellant imported a second-hand Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle under Transfer of Residence facility. The original authority rejected the declared price and applied 15% depreciation, confiscating the car. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order but refixed the assessable value at a lower amount based on market value. The Tribunal remanded the matter, emphasizing the genuineness of documents from the exporting country. The Additional Commissioner later determined the assessable value at a different amount, leading to further appeals and remands.

Depreciation percentage:
In the subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) granted a 52% depreciation on the value of the vehicle, contrary to the Tribunal's direction of 70% depreciation. The Tribunal, upon review, held that the 70% depreciation should be allowed, considering the original Tribunal order as final. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with its directions and modified the depreciation percentage accordingly.

Confiscation of vehicle:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of the car, citing discrepancies in the documents and the possibility of the appellant being a name lender. The appellant argued that the registration certificates proved ownership and possession since 1996. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the allegation of name lending and found the confiscation unsustainable under the Transfer of Residence facility conditions.

Redemption fine and penalty:
The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a redemption fine and penalty, which the appellant sought to set aside. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's submission and the nature of the documents provided, reduced the redemption fine and penalty significantly, acknowledging the appellant's compliance with document submission requirements and the government's documents' authenticity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, emphasizing compliance with its directions, allowing a higher depreciation percentage, and reducing the redemption fine and penalty based on the appellant's document submission and the government documents' authenticity from the exporting country.