9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported one Japanese origin used Toyota car 1980 Model TE Series from Los Angeles (USA) in October, 1988 and filed Bill of Entry dated 4-10-1988. As manufacturer s price list was not available, the Assistant Collector has based his assessment on the basis of National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) price catalogue showing value at US $ 5398.00 for the same car. Trade discount of 15% was shown on the NADA catalogue price and oh the discounted price total 60% (46% + 14%) depreciation was granted for the use of the car. Accordingly, the assessable value of the car was determined at Rs. 32,309/- under Rule 8(1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. It was contended by the appellant before the lower authorities that this vehicle was purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his vehicle was purchased for US $ 500 in Dec. 1980 and this was supported by Transfer of Residence Certificate dated 17-10-1984. It was stated that the vehicle was on Road in U.S.A. for 4 years and covered distance of more than 2 lakh miles. She was the third owner of the car. Second owner bought the car after an accident and sold it before repairing the damage. At the time of importation it was carrying only scrap value and it was used for packing baggage items on Transfer of Residence. She had said that car was in very bad condition at the time of importation as no part was in order and it required special depreciation. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has granted additional ad hoc depreciation of 7% over and above which was granted ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a four seater car. It was contended that no depreciation on account of defective diesel engine was allowed and further submitted that declared price was accepted by the Ministry of Commerce and granted CCP for its import. In appeal, the first appellate authority has granted extra 5% towards defective engine after considering submissions of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay these appellants have come before us by way of these three appeals. 6. We have heard Shri C.L. Beri, learned Advocate with Shri N.C. Sogani and Shri A.N. Sharma, learned Consultants for the appellants and Smt. S. Baliga, learned S.D.R. for the respondent. 7. Shri C.L. Beri, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epreciation over and above was granted in each case depending upon the Condition of the vehicle. She said that acceptance of import for I.T.C. Policy is different and same cannot be applied to calculate the value of imported article under Customs Act and Valuation Rules. 9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the records. Now it is well-settled principle of law that burden lies squarely on the Department to prove the under-valuation. First it must give proper and cogent reasons for rejecting the value declared and then at liberty to proceed to determine the value of the imported goods. To determine the value even under amended Section 14 with reference to Valuation Rules, its value prevalent at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the car to determine the value of the damaged car. Depreciation is permissible deduction in respect of second hand machinery and second hand cars irrespective of the fact whether it was used or otherwise by taking the price of year of make in the absence of such contemporaneous evidence on record to prove the value of the goods at the time of importation. Further if the car was reconditioned, cost of the reconditioning done is to be added to determine the value. Hence the condition of the vehicle is relevant to determine the value at the time of importation and not the depreciation. In the absence of any corroborated evidence and reason for rejecting the declared value the Department was not justified in enhancing the value. 10. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce paid by the appellants at the time of purchase of the car cannot be said to be transaction value. As the transaction value could not be determined for these cars, their value could not be determined under Rule 4 read with Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules. Value could not also be determined under Rules 5 and 6 as there was no import of identical or similar cars. Value could not also be determined under Rule 7 as there is no material on record to show that the circumstances stated in this Rule did exist in the present cases. In the circumstances, Rule 8 was correctly applied by the lower authorities while determining the assessable value of the cars. The orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) show that they have given s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
