2000 (2) TMI 316 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of imported Rolls-Royce car, authenticity of invoice, under-valuation charges, Customs duty assessment, penalty imposition, car confiscation, redemption fine reduction.

Valuation of Imported Car:
The dispute centered on the valuation of a Rolls-Royce car imported by the Appellants, declared at lb81,500, while the Revenue contended it was sold for lb1,13,035. The Manufacturer's letter indicated a factory price of lb1,02,527.20. The Appellants argued the Revenue's unsigned invoice was unreliable. The High Commission's letter confirmed the authenticity of the invoice, clarifying the actual sale price as lb1,13,035. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's valuation, considering the genuine invoice as evidence.

Authenticity of Invoice:
The Appellants claimed the Revenue's reliance on an unsigned invoice was unfounded. They argued that the invoice submitted was genuine and challenged the Revenue's assessment based on an unsigned copy. The High Commission's letter validated the authenticity of the invoice, supporting the Revenue's valuation. The Tribunal accepted the High Commission's confirmation, dismissing the Appellants' claim of the invoice being forged.

Under-Valuation Charges and Customs Assessment:
The Revenue accused the Appellants of under-valuation, demanding duty of Rs. 12,28,731 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh, confiscating the car. The Appellants contended that the Revenue failed to prove under-valuation and cited precedents emphasizing the need for formal statements and proper documentation. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's assessment, ruling that the declared price was not bona fide, leading to the short valuation of the license.

Penalty Imposition and Confiscation:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh and allowed car confiscation with a redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakh. The Tribunal found the penalty and redemption fine excessive, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakh and the penalty to Rs. 4 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to under-valuation but deemed the original penalties disproportionate, leading to the reduction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Revenue's valuation of the imported car, rejected the claim of the invoice being forged, upheld the under-valuation charges, reduced the penalty and redemption fine, and confirmed the confiscation of the car based on discrepancies in the declared value.