9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 28 - HC - CustomsImport of a new Ferrari Car F430, Fi Coupe - classification - order of the Settlement Commission - held that - unless and until the order passed by the Settlement Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the order cannot be interfered and further the Apex Court has held that on a question of fact, it is not open for the High Court as well as Supreme Court to interfere. In the instant case, the issue is whether the imported car is a new car or second-hand car. It is a question of fact. The Settlement Commission in Paragraphs 10.1 to 10.23 has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at the factual finding that the car imported is a new car and applied the exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. correctly. The order passed by the Settlement Commission is in accordance with law and the writ petition filed by the Revenue in W.P. No. 4451 of 2010 is dismissed as devoid of merits. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported Ferrari car was a new car or a second-hand car. 2. The correctness of the valuation of the car for customs duty purposes. 3. The appropriateness of the Settlement Commission's order in determining the additional customs duty and interest. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the imported Ferrari car was a new car or a second-hand car. The primary contention was whether the Ferrari car imported by the petitioner was new or second-hand. The Revenue argued that the car was second-hand because it had been registered in London. However, the Settlement Commission found that the registration was only for transit purposes and did not constitute usage that would classify the car as second-hand. The Commission noted that the invoice from the UK dealer labeled the car as "new" and addressed it to the petitioner. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that it was based on valid material and evidence and was not perverse or contrary to the evidence. The court referenced a similar case decided by the Bombay High Court, which supported the view that registration for transit does not make a car second-hand. Issue 2: The correctness of the valuation of the car for customs duty purposes. The petitioner declared the car's value as 106,000 GBP and paid the assessed customs duty. However, the Revenue later seized the car, alleging undervaluation and demanding additional duty based on a re-determined value of 144,485.43 GBP. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission, admitting partial duty and interest amounts and requesting an adjustment from the amount paid during the investigation. The Settlement Commission settled the additional customs duty at Rs. 14,64,690 and interest at Rs. 2,32,413, which were to be adjusted from the Rs. 90,00,000 already paid by the petitioner. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with this valuation, as it was a question of fact and not open for judicial review unless contrary to the provisions of the Act. Issue 3: The appropriateness of the Settlement Commission's order in determining the additional customs duty and interest. The Revenue contended that the Settlement Commission's order was not in accordance with law and that it had improperly reduced the duty payable. However, the High Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi, which limits interference to cases where the Settlement Commission's order is contrary to the provisions of the Act or involves bias, fraud, or malice. The High Court found that the Settlement Commission had followed the correct procedure and that its findings were based on valid material and evidence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's writ petition and allowed the petitioner's writ petition, directing the Revenue to refund the excess amount within two weeks. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order and allowed the petitioner's writ petition, directing the refund of the excess amount paid. The court upheld the Settlement Commission's findings that the car was new and that the valuation and additional duty determined were appropriate and lawful.
|
