9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, at the time of making the statement, the Chairman of the Institute produced original invoice No.1709 dated 11.10.2008 from M/s J S Aviation showing total value of the goods at USD 201025 equivalent to ₹ 98,90,438/-. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted that there is a difference in the year of manufacture of the aircraft imported in Nhava Sheva compares to the aircraft imported by the appellant. There are no reason for the Revenue to reject this transaction value - further, these aircrafts imported by the appellant is a junk and unworthy but useful for school of AME studies and there is not enough avionic equipments as per the report of the Chartered Engineer placed on record. The re-determined value of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs is less than even 10% of the reassessed value of ₹ 1,60,14,576/- and has prayed for enhancing the redemption fine and the penalty. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant (Charitable Education Society) is engaged in running an education institute in Pathanamthitta. The institute is approved by Govt. of India Civil Aviation Department as per Letter dated 21.06.2007 and Letter dated 19.01.2009. In November 2008, the management of the institute decided to import two obsolete aircraft from USA for the purpose of training and they obtained a no objection letter dated 08.12.2008 from the Director General of Civil Aviation. They approached the DGFT for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected Customs Authorities to allow provisional release of the goods within one week and as per the Order of the High Court, respondent allowed provisional release of the goods on payment of Customs duty and also took Bank Guarantee and Bond from the appellant. The statement of the Chairman was recorded on 01.07.2009 whereby he admitted that the invoice produced earlier does not include engine and other components and for that reason, he had submitted two invoices for the purpose of valuation and assessment. The appellant produced the original invoice No. 1709 dated 11.10.2008 from M/s J S Aviation showing total value of the goods as USD 201025 reflecting cost of entire items equivalent to ₹ 98,90,438/-. According to Chairman, the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import is against Customs Valuation Rules. He further submitted that the value of contemporaneous import to assess Customs duty cannot be adopted since said import was made under Risk Management System without examination and on NIL rate of Customs duty. He has also submitted that the redemption fine and the penalty are on the higher side. He further submitted that the value of the aircraft was re-determined by the Adjudicating Authority based on the value of alleged contemporaneous import. However, details of import including airworthiness of the aircraft, details of overhaul, availability of avionic equipments which are crucial to determine the value of an aircraft were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. He also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total value of the goods at USD 201025 equivalent to ₹ 98,90,438/-. Further, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has admitted that there is a difference in the year of manufacture of the aircraft imported in Nhava Sheva compares to the aircraft imported by the appellant. Further, the appellant submitted that identical aircraft imported by M/s Global Aviation, Bhopal and the Department fixed the value at ₹ 60,00,000/- but the Department did not make any inquiry about the said import and simply relied upon the alleged contemporaneous import which, according to us, was not identical because the said contemporaneous import was made under Risk Management System without examination and on NIL rate of Customs duty. Further, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
