9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 181 - AT - CustomsValuation (Customs) - used cars imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules - EXIM Policy - HELD THAT - In our view so long as the situations mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules are not there the transaction value cannot be discarded. There is no allegation that the purchase invoices produced by the appellants are bogus. Only in such cases we are of the view that adoption of Rule 8 method in valuation is proper. In the present appeals no such allegations have been made by the Revenue. In these circumstances we allow the appeals with consequential relief.
Issues: Valuation of used cars imported under Transfer of Residence Rules
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, six appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. The primary issue in all these appeals revolved around the valuation of used cars imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The Revenue did not accept the value declared by the passengers, which was based on the purchase price of the cars in the country of use. The Revenue calculated the assessable value based on the list price, considering various deductions like VAT, trade discount, and depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this method, stating that there was no sale for export as per section 14 of the Customs Act, hence valuation had to be done based on the Valuation Rules using the best judgment method. The appellants contested these Orders-in-Appeal, leading to the appeals. The appellants' advocate was unable to appear at the hearing, requesting a decision based on written submissions. The Revenue was represented by a Learned SDR. The advocate for the appellants presented arguments challenging the Revenue's valuation method. They argued that the valuation based on the list price was contrary to the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. They highlighted that the declared values were supported by manufacturers' certificates and should be accepted. They also referenced a Calcutta High Court case emphasizing the principle of determining prices at arm's length and the inapplicability of Rule 8 for second-hand goods, a stance supported by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The Revenue argued that valuation under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules was appropriate for cars purchased for use abroad, citing previous decisions. However, the Tribunal reviewed the cases and found that the appellants had provided genuine purchase invoices from foreign countries, with no evidence of undervaluation. Referring to the Calcutta High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 8 could not be applied to the valuation of second-hand cars. They noted that previous cases cited by the Revenue did not significantly support their position. The Tribunal emphasized that unless specific conditions in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules were met, the transaction value should not be disregarded. As there were no allegations of fake invoices in the present appeals, the Tribunal allowed the appeals with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of genuine purchase invoices and rejecting the Revenue's valuation method based on the list price for used cars imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The judgment highlighted the application of relevant legal principles and previous court decisions to determine the appropriate valuation method for imported second-hand goods.
|
