2023 (6) TMI 598 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of Vehicle - redemption fine - penalty - rejection of declared value - value of the vehicle was proposed to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 on the basis of value available on Parker s website - benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has held that the proposed value in the show cause notice is not acceptable. The said order was not challenged by the Revenue before any authority. Therefore, the said part of the order attains finality as there is no proposal in the show-cause notice to take valuation available from the manufacturer s website. Therefore, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the value adopted by the ld.Adjudicating authority is not acceptable in the absence of any other value of the said goods available at that time. Therefore, the declared value is to be accepted - there are no infirmity in the above observations. Further, it is the fact that the vehicle was manufactured in June 2007 as declared by the manufacturer and the registration was in August 2007, which was manufactured by the respondent vide Invoice of June, 2007 and the Bill of Lading was also available of July 2007. In that circumstances, the vehicle was registered only for the purposes of transportation for the Port. Therefore, it cannot be held that the vehicle was old and used. In that circumstances, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly given the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.344. The goods are not liable for confiscation as the facts are not controverted by any cogent evidence - It is found that at the time of import, the vehicle was physically examined and found new one - the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.344. The vehicle is not liable for confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are not imposable - there are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the fraudulent import of high-end cars, determination of assessable value of imported goods, application of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the eligibility for benefits under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002.

Fraudulent Import Investigation:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated a case involving the fraudulent import of a Lexus LS 460 Car. The respondent imported the car from Dubai, but discrepancies were found in the import documents, including the non-existence of the exporting entity, M/s Lexus Japan (Export Division). The Customs House Agent submitted documents showing the vehicle's shipment from Japan to Kolkata, but discrepancies in the valuation and origin of the vehicle were identified.

Assessment of Valuation:
The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value of the vehicle and proposed a re-determination of its value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The authority considered the value available on a third-party website for similar goods meant for the U.K. market. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the proposed valuation did not conform to legal requirements and held that the declared value should be accepted in the absence of any other reliable valuation.

Benefit Eligibility under Notification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, as the vehicle was considered new based on its manufacturing and registration dates. The temporary registration for transportation purposes did not affect the eligibility for the notification's benefits, leading to the conclusion that the vehicle was not liable for confiscation.

Decision and Upholding of Order:
The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the declared value should be accepted due to the lack of alternative valuation in the show-cause notice. It was also established that the vehicle was not old or used, as claimed by the adjudicating authority, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to the benefits under the relevant notification. Consequently, the vehicle was deemed not liable for confiscation, and no redemption fine or penalty was imposed. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.