9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill of Entry No. 429 dated 10-11-2010 declaring the value as GBP 2857 (CIF) and the assessable value in Indian rupees as Rs. 2,04,731/-. (b) The UK registration certificate submitted by the appellant indicated that the car was acquired by him only on 9-8-2010 indicating that the car was not in his use for the stipulated minimum period of one year. (c) Examination of the inner parts of the engine indicated the date of manufacture as 8-2-2007. The car was found to be a high end model with all accessories like power windows, music system and that it has run around 22560 Kms. only. (d) Enquiries with the manufacturer revealed that BMW car of 2007 make was priced at 51,428 GB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the car. (v) That if the repairs and the actual freight is considered, then the actual value of the car works out to Rs. 6 lakhs and that he is ready to pay the applicable duties on the said value. (h) Original authority vide order dated 2-5-2011 rejected the declared value of the imported car and re-determined the value as Rs. 18,60,725/-. He ordered absolute confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) of Customs Act. In addition, he imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. (i) On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority except reducing the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the vehicle is less and also the list of repairs. Please call me 00447597788727 or email me at [email protected] If you have any questions. Sincerely Jn Bauer 4.3 She further submits that the appellant is a genuine importer and the violation if any, is only of a technical nature and, therefore, there is no justification for imposition of penalties and therefore, seeks setting aside the penalty. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.1 We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Import of a car, undisputedly, requires a licence. However, a person who has lived in a foreign country for a period of 3 years and above is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31/- declared by the appellant in the Bill of entry is ridiculously low. The invoice dated 9-8-2010 from a garage owner which was sought to be supported by a subsequent letter dated 27-6-2011 (obtained after the dates on which order of the original authority and order of the Commissioner (Appeals) were passed) are not reliable documents. It is fairly submitted that no such claim regarding procuring the vehicle on auction has been made before the original authority. Why such a fairly new vehicle which has run only 22560 Kms. came for auction and who has taken on auction, whether J.N. Bauer Ltd. or the appellant are not forthcoming. Therefore, the basis on which letter of the garage owner claimed that the vehicle was taken on auction is not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h year = 8% @ 2% and thereafter for every quarter during 4th year Thus, the total admissible depreciation would be 46%. Then, to arrive at the transaction value, transport at actuals, insurance @ 1.125% of FOB and landing charge @ 1% of CIF would have to be added, as the actual insurance is not known. Here, it is relevant to mention that during the course of personal hearing, the authorized representative of the importer, has submitted the original freight invoice, wherein it is mentioned that the actual freight incurred in transporting the impugned car is Rs. 1,48,654.84. Price : 51,428.00 GBP Deduction allowed to arrive at net of tax @ 15% : 7,714.2 Discount price : 43,713.80 Depreciation @ 46% : 23, 605.45 Conversion rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
