9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had furnished the following documents: a. Invoice showing the price of the car at Dhirams 45,000 CIF b. Affidavit and passport of the appellant c. Two registration certificates issued by the licensing authority, Ministry of Interior, Umm Al Quwain Traffic Department, UAE dated 2.9.1993 in the name of the previous owner K.M. Abdullah and another dated 9.5.1996 in the name of the appellant d. Vehicle Export Certificate issued by the aforesaid authority dated 14.5.1998 e. Bill of Lading 2. Car was not released to the appellant as the investigation was taken up by SIIB. The car was examined on 23.5.1998 and statement was recorded from the appellant on 26.5.1998. Investigations with Mitsubishi Motors revealed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the original authority giving 15% trade discount and refixing the assessable value at Rs. 5.39 lakhs and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. To arrive at this assessable value, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had adopted the market value of the vehicle as Rs. 12 lakhs as found in Business Standard Publication of July 1999 showing value of the vehicle for the period 1992 94. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, appellant filed Appeal No. C/470/2000 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and vide Final Order dated 10.7.2001, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for readjudication. The Tribunal observed that the documents produced by the appellant are original documents issued from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was later withdrawn by the department on 19.12.2014. 6. Pursuant to the remand order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed the impugned order dated 3.2.2011. Under the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered depreciation of 52% and upheld confiscation of the car and fixed redemption fine as Rs. One lakh and penalty as Rs. 50,000/- under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 7. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri V.Ravindran was represented by Shri B. Satish Sundar and Dr. S.Krishnanandh. It was submitted that the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 31.3.2006 had remanded the matter directed to allow depreciation of 70% on the value of car while determining the assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service / maintenance after its sale and registration in Dubai. Therefore, the fact that the car came back to Dubai in December 1997 cannot mean that it was imported into Dubai for the first time in December 1997. There is no cogent evidence to establish the allegation that the appellant was only a name lender for the import. The vehicle having been imported under TR facility and fulfilling the conditions of Public Notice 3/1997-2002, the confiscation and penalty cannot sustain. He pleaded that the redemption fine and penalty may be set aside. 8. The ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that while remanding the matter, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 31.3.2006 had set aside the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
