9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no other proper officer for such work. In any case, redetermination of value was not proposed with reference to specific value and legal provision and with supporting evidence in the show-cause notice. Similarly reclassification, with reasons, was not proposed in the show-cause notice. Incidentally it is noted that para 20(iv) of the original order rejected the classification under CTH 8703 and ordered reclassification under CTH 8702. We note that in fact, the appellant in their Bill of Entry classified their product under CTH 8702 only. It would appear that the said finding of the original authority is, perhaps, an error. In any case, when there was no proposal with reasons in the notice, reclassification without such proposal is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No. 21413 / 2017 - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Shri P.A. Augustian Adv For the Appellant Shri Parashivamurthy, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dt. 17/05/2017 of Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Cochin. The appellants filed Bill of Entry on 01/03/2017 for clearance of one motor vehicle declared as used Cadillac Escalade, 18 Seater, Colour White, CHS No.1GYEC63TX5R162091, Engine size: 3600 cc with a value of ₹ 11,42,310/-. Entertaining a view that the said importation is in violation of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act, for short) and also Policy made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court vide their order dt. 10/07/2017, directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal at the earliest, in any case within 6 months. 3. The learned counsel contesting the findings of the lower authorities submitted mainly on the following lines:- a. The show-cause notice never proposed reclassification of goods or redetermination of assessable value with supporting details. In the absence of such proposal for refixing the value / reclassifying the product, the appellant were not able to put up the case in their defence. The original authority as well as the appellant authority discussed and decided issues which were not proposed with evidence in the show-cause notice. On this ground alone, the orders are not sustainable. b. Regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice and the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the show-cause notice did not bring out the allegations specifically for redetermination of assessable value with amount proposed for such value, with supporting evidence. Similarly no proposal for reclassifying the product with reasons was recorded in the show-cause notice. We note that the original authority, surprisingly, directed the proper officer to re-determine the assessable value in terms of Valuation Rules. We find that when the proceedings for reassessment were initiated by a show-cause notice, the original authority is bound to decide on the correct valuation. It is not sustainable for him to delegate such work to further proper officer. The original adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession or custody such goods have been seized, option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit . The proviso to the said Section provides for certain restriction in fixing the redemption fine. In the present case, we find no reasoning recorded in the impugned order to hold that the imported car is a prohibited item as per any notification or provisions of Customs Act or allied act enforced by the Customs authorities. In fact, the original authority relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Omprakash Bhatia [2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC)] and Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Malabar Diamond Gallery P. Ltd. [2016(341) ELT 65 (Mad.)] and also the Tribunal decision dealing with non-compliance of condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on consistent practice followed by the authorities all over India, especially Custom House, Cochin in allowing clearance of such cars on payment of redemption fine in identical set of facts. We refer to the following case laws: i. Sound N Image Vs. CC [2000(117) ELT 538] ii. Ahmed Kunhi Vs. CC, Chennai [2007(218) ELT 270] iii. Segu muh d Vs. CC, Cochin [2006(196) ELT 218] iv. Narayanan Vs. CC, Cochin [2009(233) ELT 77] v. S souza Lorenzo Vs. CC, Cochin [2007(215) ELT 400] vi. Mann Tourist Vs. CC [2015(319) ELT 153] 8. We also note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Grand Prime Ltd. [2003(155) 417 (SC)] held that Customs Act does not contain any provision regarding reexport of goods. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
