9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under the provisions of Category E of PM No. 3/97 dated 31-3-1998. The assessment of the Cars was sought on the basis of the purchase price of the Cars i.e. US $ 12600 CIF. The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vide his Order-in-Original No. 32/99/ COMMR, dated 10-3-1999 fixed the assessable value of the Cars at Rs. 18,54,732/- and demanded Customs duty on the basis of that enhanced value. The cars were also confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The redemption of the cars on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh was also allowed. 2. The confiscation of the cars was on the ground that import of cars by Joint Venture Company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that even though the Adjudication Order states that the valuation has been done on the basis of catalogue price no catalogue had been made available to them. No particulars about the catalogue have been mentioned in the adjudication order also. The appellant, therefore, contended that the valuation done was without any basis. 4. With regard to the confiscation of the goods the appellant s submission is that the Commissioner had himself admitted that there was no deliberate mis-declaration. Therefore, there was no justification for confiscation of the cars and imposition of penalty. 5. As against the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the ld. D.R. has submitted that used cars are liable to be valued according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse, transaction value of the goods should constitute their assessable value. In the present case, since the value declared in the Customs Documents have not been found to be different from the transaction price, the rejection of the transaction value has been done without any justifiable reasons. The appellants are also right in their contention that in the facts of the present case the purchase price should have been accepted for the assessment of the goods. The appellants case is covered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Debabrata Ghosh. Therefore, the assessment of the cars were required to be done in accordance with the transaction value. 6. The cars were confiscated holding that the relaxation with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
