9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and has also reduced the redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). The importer has also filed Cross-Objection No.62/2009. Both the appeal and Cross Objection are being disposed of by this order. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the respondent-importer filed a Bill of Entry No.170639 dated 14/12/2005 for the clearance of 'Toyota Land Cruiser' declaring the year of manufacture as 1998. The department on investigation found that the year of manufacture of the vehicle was 2003 and that the respondent has not complied with the pre-import condition. A show-cause notice was issued on Shri Hamza Mohammed Kunhi proposing confiscation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Bill of Entry and re-determined the value of the car as Rs. 14,87,102/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Two Only) and also ordered to assess the vehicle as 2003 model. He also ordered confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) and (m) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) was also imposed. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal and also reduced the redemption fine and penalty. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Learned AR for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence but only on the basis of assumptions. He further submitted that it is a clear case of tampering of chassis number of imported second hand car Toyota Land Cruiser by the importer as proved by the information furnished by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore who are the unit of Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan which is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The information obtained from M/s. Toyota which is reputed global leader in the manufacture of car cannot be brushed aside. He further submitted that tampering is done to make less payment of duty. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the evidence furnished by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore on the ground that they are the interested part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kirloskar Motors and the Investigating Officer of Cochin Customs as mentioned in the said letter. He further submitted that the representative of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors refused to give answer to the questions which were very crucial to substantiate the allegation that they were the interested party and have no authority to represent the original manufacturers, M/s. Toyota Corporation, Japan. The person claiming to be one of the senior most officer of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors have failed to give even basic information whether engine of the car can be interchanged by another engine and gave the negative reply to most of the questions put to him during cross-examination. He further submitted that during cross-examination the said re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ampered with the chassis number of the vehicle whereas as per the enquires made by the Department from Toyota Kirlosakar Motors, Bangalore they found that the model of the vehicle is 2003 and therefore in order to save Customs duty, the importer has mis-declared the year of manufacture and also the valuation. Further we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has considered all these aspects in detail and after considering all these grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any physical evidence of tampering, clarification of interested third party cannot be a sufficient reason for rejection of the invoice value. Further, we find that in the first round of litigation this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged in this case. The learned adjudicating authority has noted that the credibility of the invoice is in serious doubt only on the basis of the above mentioned report of TKM. Serious doubt, even if it is there, is not sufficient to reject the invoice value. In the absence of any physical evidence of tampering a clarificatory second report of an interested third party cannot be a sufficient reason for rejection of invoice value. There is also no reason for casually rejecting the Dubai Police Certificate of export. It is a sovereign body's report mentioning the year of manufacture and cannot be dismissed lightly. I therefore accept the invoice value, Since the value will be considerably less when the year of manufacture is taken to be 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
