9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of this case are as follows : The respondent imported one 1988 model Toyota Cressida car when he returned to India, by filing Bill of Entry No. 2206/24-8-1993. For assessment purposes, the value of the car was fixed at Rs. 2,58,816/-. A depreciation of 54% was allowed for the period 8/1988 to 6/1993 and US $ 1717.50 were added as freight charges from Japan to India vide Order-in-Original No. S. 33/110/93 AP. Cus., dated 6-12-1993 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin. 2(a) The importer, Shri K.K.R. Ibrahim Rowther, being aggrieved by the Original Order filed appeal before Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. He submitted that freight charges should be limited upto 20% of FOB value of the car imported. 3. Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was submitted the respondent was hospitalised for which the respondent has produced the Medical Certificate for the period from 25-4-1994 to 8-5-1994. The copy of the Department appeal was received by him on 28-3-1994. He referred to the condonation application to show that the delay is not deliberate and that the respondent has been diligent in pursuing the matter with his Counsel as soon as he was discharged from the hospital. The ld. D.R., however, opposed the condonation. We find that since it is on medical ground supported by Medical Certificate, the same may be condoned. The ld. D.R., further, pointed out that in the Cross Objection certain points have been taken which were not agitated before the lower authorities at all relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt before the Collector (Appeals) is that the D.C.M. Toyota price includes additional fittings like air-conditioner and stereo system which should have been deducted from assessable value also remains unsubstantiated by material evidence and hence there is no reason to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) finding in this regard. Another point the respondents have raised only before the CEGAT and not before the Collector (Appeals) is relating to the rate of exchange. They have submitted that in determining the value of the car imported in 1993, the Department should have taken the convertible value of the Japan s Yen as in 1988 and not 1993 as the Department has done. This plea of the respondents goes against the proviso to Sec. 14 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
