9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-12-2007. 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. The respondent approached the Commissioner (A) for relief. The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the appellant only on 3-10-2007 but the car was not even in the UAE at that point of time. In fact as per export certificate issued by Japanese Authorities, the car was owned by M/s. World Wide Showa Tsusho Co. Ltd., Japan even on 27-3-2008, hence, M/s. Al Wafrah Used Car Trading L.L.C., Dubai has issued an invoice which they did not own at that point of time. Therefore, the invoice should be treated as invalid and rejected. So the Commissioner's acceptance of the invoice is not proper and legal. (ii) The importer in his letter dated 4-5-2008 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Appraising), in response to an intimation made by the department regarding assessable value arrived under Rule 9 of he Customs Valaution Rules, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation Rules, 2007. The order of the Commissioner:(A) reviewing the invoice relying on details irrelevant for valuation and ignoring the provisions mentioned in the Customs Valuation Rules, is therefore, not proper and legal. (iv) Just because Bill of Lading shows the exact details, it does not mean that invoice produced by the import is genuine. There is no correlation between the invoice and the Bill of Lading. Hence, reliance made by the Commissioner (A) on the Bill of Lading to establish that invoice is genuine is not proper and legal. (v) The import had justified import of the vehicle from Japan by claiming that no right hand driven cars are available in Dubai. This is far from the truth. It is true that right hand driven cars are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner. However, no prudent car dealer would continue using already used car risking damages/maintenance, he would have to rectify before handing over the car. Hence, this shows that no sale was effected on 3-10-2007 and that the invoice produced by the importer is a fabricated invoice which needs rejection. 4. The respondent has filed his cross objection. The respondent stated that in terms of the decision of this Bench in the case of Segu Muhammed Hanas v. CC, Cochin - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 218 (Tri.-Bang.), the invoice value has to be accepted in the absence of circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998. He stated that this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. On going through the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
