9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., London. The car was released on payment of duty based on the declaration filed by them regarding value and other particulars of car against Import licence No. P/K/05466 V, dated 30-11-1993. Subsequently the car was seized as the investigation revealed that the CIF Value should be Rs. 53,20,987/- instead of Rs. 43,95,712/- declared by the Appellants and that the Import Licence was short by Rs. 9,25,275/-. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, demanded Customs duty amounting to Rs. 12,28,731/-, imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakh and confiscated the car with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakh, holding that as per certificate from the British Customs, the ex-factory price of the impugned car was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er car . He also mentioned that in domestic trade in U.K., VAT which is about 17-18% is included in the sale price and if it is deducted from 1,02,427, the net price would be almost the same as declared by the Appellants; that generally export prices are lower than the domestic prices; The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the Appellants had paid only 81500 to the supplier which is evident from the demand draft, dated 27-1-1995 (at page 19 of Appeal Papers), that on the basis of a fax message (at page 51 of the Appeal Papers) the Revenue is concluding that the payment of 1,08,670.50 has been made to M/s. Jack Barclay Ltd; that there is nothing to connect the Appellants with the said message; that according to letter, dated 22- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs of the Commissioner as contained in the impugned Order. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The dispute in the appeal is about the valuation of one Rolls-Royce car imported by the Appellants. They have declared the value to be 81,500 whereas according to the Revenue, the supplies had sold the car for 1,13,035 and according to letter of the Manufacturer, the factory price of the car was 1,02,527.20 inclusive of accessories. The main argument on behalf of the Appellants is that the invoice submitted by the Revenue is unsigned one which cannot be relied upon. The Revenue has now brought on record a copy of High Commission of India s letter, dated 23-7-1999 which reads as under: Dear Mr. Hussain, Subject: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value. As no discount has been indicated in the invoice, no deduction is to be made on that count. The demand of duty has to be worked out accordingly. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that for licencing purposes what is relevant is C.I.F. value and not the value under Section 14 of the Customs Act and, therefore, even if the value is enhanced for assessment purpose, C.I.F. value will remain the same for licence debiting purposes. He placed reliance on the decision in U.O.I. v. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 284 (Bom) and Sneha Traders (P) Ltd v. C.C. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 43 (Cal.) whereas the Commissioner has relied upon the decision in Sanjay Chandiram s case, supra. We observe that the price of the car in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
