9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 10,97,556/- while imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 2,75,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,37,000/-. Commissioner (A) vide Order No. 108/08 dated 07.10.2008 has accepted the value declared by Shri Mohan Raman and reduced the fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. An appeal was filed by the Department holding that the Commissioner (A) erred in accepting the value though the same was arrived following Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and CBEC Circular No. 495/16/93. This appeal No. C/168/2009 was dismissed by this Bench vide F.O. No.21405-21406/2018 dated 06.09.2018 as the Department has withdrawn the appeal under the Litigation Policy of the Government. 2. Thereafter, the Department filed an application for Restoration of Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have purchased the car of 2003 model on payment of 13,000 USD including the freight up to Cochin. The respondents also furnished details of contemporaneous imports made at Cochin, Margoa and Mumbai. Commissioner (A) rightly found that the invoice mentions the vehicle name, chassis number, engine number, model number etc. which were found correct by Customs on examination. He relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) and submitted that the Department had no reason to dismiss the invoice value and arrived at the value arbitrarily without going to the valuation rules in a sequential order. No reasons have been cited for rejecting the value of contemporaneous imports. He also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was realized on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Once, the vehicle is allowed to be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, the violations, if any, has been atoned. Therefore, we find no reason to accept the department's contention in this regard. We find that this Bench in the case of Narayan Nambiar Meloth (supra) has held as follows: "10. In respect of Appeal No. C/35/2008 the appellant Shri Narayana Nambiar Meloth challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant actually imported a car with right hand drive. Records revealed that the car was not in his possession for a period of one year. Hence, violation of the policy is clearly established. But, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
