1998 (9) TMI 272 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of car details in the Bill of Entry.
2. Confiscation of the car and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Requirement of possession for a specified period under Import Export Policy.
4. Applicability of depreciation rate for valuation of the imported car.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the misdeclaration of a Mercedes Benz Saloon car imported under transfer of residence. The car was declared as a 1980 model 200D in the Bill of Entry, but investigations revealed it was manufactured in 1983 with a 2400 cc engine, not registered in the appellant's name in UAE.

2. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the car, offering redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty for importing the car with incorrect information. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating the appellant failed to comply with the possession condition and had fabricated documents. The appellant argued the engine was replaced in 1983, and the car was with their family in Abu Dhabi for an extended period, denying any misdeclaration.

3. The appellant's advocate contended that the possession, custody, and use of the car did not necessitate registration in the user's name, citing a Board's Circular for depreciation valuation. The Department argued the car was purchased and exported on the same day, not meeting the possession requirement. The Tribunal found no evidence of the car being in the appellant's use for over a year as per the Import Export Policy.

4. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but allowed a higher depreciation rate of 70% instead of 46% for the car's valuation, considering the car's actual make and import date. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the increased depreciation rate could be applied retroactively, providing relief to the appellant in the valuation aspect.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the car but allowed a higher depreciation rate for valuation, emphasizing the importance of accurate declaration and compliance with import policies. The appeal was disposed of with these terms.