9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides agreeing this was done. 2. The facts in brief are as follows. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for used car (Renault saloon model 1992) claiming importability in terms of ITC Public Notice No. 3/97. He produced an invoice in his name indicating purchase of the said car in second-hand condition for a net value paid of 2250 pounds. The Customs did not accept the valuation. The initial valuation was done at Rs. 4,24,669/- which was later reassessed to Rs. 2,99,880/-. On examination of the importability it was found that the engine capacity of the car was 1700 cc and also that the importer was in possession of the car for a short period. The said Public Notice prescribed minimum possession of one year and the engine capacity as less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the present appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the arguments made before us. 5. The valuation of second-hand articles always poses problems because there is no uniformity or standardisation possible for second-hand goods. For the last few years the law evolved in the case of valuation of second-hand cars is that in the absence of the manufacturers invoice, reliance would be placed on the manufacturers Price List. If the Price List is not available, then reliance would be placed on valuation shown in the World Car Catalogue. From this price as the basis, the depreciation is worked out and the valuation arrived at. In the present case, it appears that neither the manufacturer s invoice, nor the manufacturer s Price List was avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that except during the hearing no opportunity was given to the importer to state his case, nor evidence was disclosed to him for the proposal of revaluation and that the show cause notice did not speak of under valuation at all. Even the show cause notice speaks of very wide range of valuation where the Customs themselves after initially fixing the value at Rs. 4,24,669/- subsequently reduced it to Rs. 2,99,880/-. We find that the entire exercise in valuation was done without following the basic tenets of the valuation. This modus operandi lacks the basis of law which cannot be sustained and therefore the valuation based thereupon also cannot be sustained. In this peculiar circumstance, the valuation as accpted by Mr. Gupta before the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
