9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have gone through the order. The document at Annexure 17 of the paper book is a letter dated 22-5-06 from M/s. Land Rover to Al Wafrah Cars LLC, which states that Range Rover with chassis No. SALLPAMM3WA394717 came off the production line on the 12th February, 1998 and the documents at Annexure 18 is a show cause notice dated 16-3-2006 issued by the Mumbai Custom House. These documents have been analyzed by the Commissioner in his findings and he has also gone through the various arguments raised by the appellant during the course of de novo hearing. The Commissioner has come to the following conclusion : I find that Shri Harish Chappa Hassan, has in active connivance with his cousin, Rafik and the overseas supplier deliberately mis-declared the year of make of the imported Range Rover as 1998 and to substantiate such mis-declaration has submitted fabricated Registration documents of DVLA, UK. Even though Shri Harish Chappa Hassan had maintained that he was not aware of the fact of shipment of the vehicle from UK or the reasons for the despatch of a different vehicle than the one he had booked for, it appears that he being the ultimate beneficiary of the duty evasion had arran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The letter dated 6-3-06 of Shri Harish Chappa Hassan forwarded by the Custom House Agent under cover of their letter dated 9-3-2006 also reiterates that despatch of 2002 model was offered subject to payment of the additional amount of USD 9000 and that the additional amount was paid to M/s. Alwafrah used Car trading LLC Sharjah. The invoice covering the additional amount was also enclosed with the letter. The evidences as above have never been disputed or retracted by the importer. To the contrary the importer had reiterated his voluntary statements in his letter dated 6-3-06 and in his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 4-4-2006. The importer s submission before the Appellate Tribunal that the statements were extracted under duress are in contradiction to the importer s submissions subsequent to the statement and therefore is unfounded and are backed by no evidence. Further, the additional invoice submitted by the importer through the CHA and under cover of a letter from the CHA is in itself speaking evidence against the importer s story of an extracted statement. The importer cannot be speaking in forked tongues. While attempting to explain a change in model of the vehicle b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 5. The learned Advocate challenges the above findings. With regard to the valuation, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. A. Jackson v. Collector of Customs - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.). Further, he has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal on valuation in the case of Segu Mohammed Hanas v. CC, Cochin - Final Order Nos. 1684-1689/2005, dated 28-9-2005 [2006 (196) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal)] upheld by the Apex Court, wherein the invoice value was ordered to be accepted in the absence of any deliberate effort on the part of the appellants to undervalue the goods. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of D Souza Lawrence v. CC, Cochin - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Bang.) with regard to valuation and imposition of fine and penalty. It was pleaded that when the invoice is produced by importer to support declared value and if there is no allegation that invoice is fraud, value reflected in the invoice has to be accepted as transaction value. The learned Advocate stated that the car was subjected to examination by the investigating team under respondent and they found that the chassis number of the car was as declared. However, they observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also the mis-declaration. We cannot say that there is absolutely no mis-declaration. The Adjudicating Authority has given a detailed finding to the effect that the model of the car imported is 2002 model Range Rover Vogue and which is not as declared by the appellant. According to the appellant, the model of the car is 1998. The Commissioner has in Paragraph which we have quoted has given the elaborate reasoning based on facts and investigations. We do not have any sufficient grounds to differ from the finding of the Commissioner. Similarly, with regard to valuation also, once there is a mis-declaration of the model, the value cannot be blindly accepted and the Commissioner while arriving at the correct valuation has followed the Customs Valuation Rules and determined the value at Rs. 23,21,536/-. When there is mis-declaration of description, then the transaction value becomes suspect and it cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Commissioner has followed the Customs Valuation Rules. Rules 5, 6, 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules cannot be applied in the case of the used car. He has determined the value in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Further, the assessable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
