2004 (10) TMI 221 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of the imported car
2. Confiscability of the car
3. Imposition of fine and penalty

Analysis:
1. Valuation of the imported car:
The appellant imported a car and declared its value as US $70,000, based on the amount paid to the Singapore dealer. However, an investigation revealed that the manufacturer sold the car to the dealer for US $1,07,395, indicating a significant discrepancy. The Customs Department contended that the declared value was abnormally reduced from the actual price, justifying non-acceptance under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant cited a previous case to support the negotiated price argument, but the Tribunal found it inapplicable due to the absence of relevant valuation provisions at that time. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal regarding the valuation of the car.

2. Confiscability of the car:
The Customs Department seized the appellant's car due to misdeclaration concerns and issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalty under relevant sections of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the car but allowed its release on payment of a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the transaction value was genuine and no evidence proved otherwise. The absence of concrete evidence led the Tribunal to rule in favor of the appellant, stating that the charges of misdeclaration were not substantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the Order of the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin.

3. Imposition of fine and penalty:
In line with the decision on the confiscability issue, the Tribunal found that the absence of evidence supporting misdeclaration allegations led to the dismissal of the penalty and fine imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellant due to the lack of conclusive proof against them. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-11-03 and provided consequential relief to the appellants, if applicable.