9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t round of litigation this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to afford an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the signatory of the documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Further, we find that instead of the person who has signed the letter dated 19/12/2005 some other person was produced for cross-examination who during the cross-examination expressed ignorance about the contents of the letter dated 19/12/2005 and the reason for issuing the said letter. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Cross Objection No. 62 of 2009 in Customs Appeal No. 09 of 2009 - Final Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the value of the car at ₹ 14,87,102/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Two Only) as a 2003 model and imposing a fine of ₹ 4,40,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Forty Thousand Only). Penalty of ₹ 2,20,000/- (Two Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) was also imposed. Aggrieved by the said Order the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, vide Order-in-Appeal No.291/07 dated 24/04/07 upheld the Order passed by the lower authority and rejected the appeal. The respondent herein, then, filed one appeal before the Hon ble CESTAT against the said Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hon ble CESTAT through its Final Order No.876/07 dated 06/08/07 set aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department conducted enquiries from the manufacturer of the vehicle the M/s. Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan which revealed that the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle as declared by the importer and physically found on the vehicle were not tallying. He further submitted that the enquiries made by the Department from M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore, it was found that the year of manufacture is 2003 and not 1998 and the chassis was tampered for mis-declaring the year of manufacture. He further submitted that once the department found the tampering with the Chassis number, thereafter the Department rejected the invoice value and reassessed the value of used car at ₹ 14,87,102/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Eighty Seven Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has relied upon the certificate issued by Dubai Police which is a sovereign body whereas the information given by the Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore has not been given any credence. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that in the first round of litigation, the CESTAT remanded the matter to the Original Authority and directed the Original Authority to decide the matter after affording an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the signatory to the documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority. He further submitted that in reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent specifically alleged that M/s. Navnit Motors is the party adversely affected by the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the car is concerned, the importer has in fact purchased the used car Toyota Land Cruiser, 1998 model as is where is condition for an amount of ₹ 45,000/-Dhs from M/s. Treasure Used Cars LLC, the car dealer arranged export of the car along with invoice. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that invoice value is not the full transaction value and there is no admissible evidence regarding mis-declaration of any relevant details. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Narayan Nambiar Meloth Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2009 (233) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. Bang.) Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2009 (244) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) Segu Mohammed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. Further, we find that instead of the person who has signed the letter dated 19/12/2005 some other person was produced for cross-examination who during the cross-examination expressed ignorance about the contents of the letter dated 19/12/2005 and the reason for issuing the said letter. Further it is pertinent to reproduce the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has given the reasons for allowing the appeal of the importer. The said finding is reproduced herein below: ..It has been urged by the learned advocate that TKM is an interested party as they import new cars and import of second hand cars of same company at cheaper price can adversely affect the import of new cars. There is force in this argument. Wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
