9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - one Shri Nediyambath Kunjhayappa Kutty Pushpangadhan alias N.K. Pushpangadhan, (hereinafter called as N.K. Kutty), an Indian national who was working as driver in Dubai returned after a stay of 18 years there on 25 June 1998 for permanent settlement in India. He imported a Toyota Land Cruiser Car, 1995 model car, to be cleared ICD, Bangalore on Bill of Entry dated 15-10-1998. When he presented the RC book, Insurance Certificate and other documents and earnings for purchase, before the vehicle could be cleared, the Preventive Customs Officers of HQ, Bangalore detained the vehicle and recorded statements. It was alleged in the Show Cause Notice issued, that the import of the said Car for availing TR concession to Shri N.K. Kutty was not eli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had arrived in Dubai. Show Cause Notice also relied upon the valuation opinion. The ld. Additional Commissioner, after considering the material came to the conclusion that since no payment was made out of the earnings in Foreign Exchange of the importer, viz. Shri N.K. Kutty, therefore, value will have to be determined as per Customs valuation rule and taking the catalogue price and after allowing the trade discount, determined the value of Rs. 5,93,144.03 and after considering the additional fittings determine the assessable value for the purpose of duty to be Rs 6,18,144.03 and rejected the value of Rs. 2,08,463/ declared, he ordered confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, cannot up hold the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs fine imposed. (b) The ld. Advocate submitted that the Statement of Shri N.K. Kutty were not correct, as the same were retracted by a letter dated 11-3-1999 to Additional Commissioner to Customs, Bangalore and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate the statement and has relied on subsequent decisions. We find that the appellants have not denied the fact of the clearance of the vehicle from UAE, Customs at Sharjah on 3-7-1998 (sic). They are claiming this to be a re-entry, but have not produced any evidence of earlier export of vehicle for the alleged re-entry on that date. Hence, the findings of the lower authority about the car having not been in Sharjah to be in possession/use can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
