2009 (3) TMI 478 - AT - Customs

Valuation- Invoice Value- The lower authority proceeded against the respondent for non-fulfillment of the pre-import condition of minimum one year possession and use abroad. Moreover, the credibility of invoice was also doubted. The invoice did not contain important details like year of manufacture, odometer reading, specification of the vehicle, etc. which are normally available in all transactions related to car. Hence, the lower authority confiscated the car valued at Rs. 7,73,893/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. However, redemption option was given on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed. Commissioner (Appeals) reduce the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. Held that- We do not find any infirmity in his order. In these circumstances, we reject revenue s appeal.

Issues:
1. Validity of the invoice and acceptance of assessable value.
2. Estoppel on importer from questioning assessed value.
3. Relevance of details in the invoice for valuation.
4. Correlation between invoice and Bill of Lading.
5. Justification for importing the vehicle from Japan.
6. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty.
7. Ownership and possession of the vehicle before import.

Issue 1: Validity of the invoice and acceptance of assessable value:
The case involved the import of a used vehicle where the lower authority confiscated the car due to non-fulfillment of pre-import conditions and doubts about the credibility of the invoice. The Commissioner (A) accepted the invoice value based on detailed grounds provided in the invoice, including chassis number, engine number, and luxury accessories. The Commissioner also referenced previous judgments supporting the acceptance of invoice value in similar circumstances. The Revenue challenged this decision citing ownership discrepancies and lack of necessary details in the invoice.

Issue 2: Estoppel on importer from questioning assessed value:
The Revenue argued that the importer, by accepting the assessed value without protest, was legally estopped from challenging it later. They referenced a previous case to support their contention. However, the Commissioner (A) and the appellate tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the importer did challenge the valuation and provided justifications for accepting the invoice value.

Issue 3: Relevance of details in the invoice for valuation:
The Revenue contended that the invoice lacked essential details such as the year of make, odometer reading, and port of shipment, which are crucial for valuation. They argued that the Commissioner (A) erred in accepting the invoice value based on irrelevant details and ignoring Customs Valuation Rules. The Revenue also questioned the correlation between the invoice and the Bill of Lading.

Issue 4: Correlation between invoice and Bill of Lading:
The Revenue disputed the Commissioner's reliance on the Bill of Lading to establish the genuineness of the invoice, highlighting the lack of correlation between the two documents.

Issue 5: Justification for importing the vehicle from Japan:
The Revenue challenged the importer's justification for importing the vehicle from Japan, arguing that right-hand driven cars are available in Dubai despite the importer's claim. They criticized the Commissioner (A) for accepting this justification without considering the market reality.

Issue 6: Reduction of redemption fine and penalty:
The Revenue raised concerns about the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (A), arguing that the percentage of the imposed fines was reasonable considering the market value of the car.

Issue 7: Ownership and possession of the vehicle before import:
The Revenue pointed out discrepancies in the ownership and possession of the vehicle before import, indicating that the invoice provided by the importer might be fabricated. They highlighted the odometer readings and ownership details to support their argument.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (A)'s decision to accept the invoice value and reduce the fines and penalties based on the detailed justifications provided. The judgment analyzed each issue thoroughly, considering legal precedents and Customs Valuation Rules to reach a reasoned decision.

← Previous Next →