9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The facts of this case are that the Appellant during transfer of residence from UAE to India in January 2000 imported a used Toyota Corolla Car of 1996 make and Model DX 4A/T (AEPBK) under Transfer of Residence Rules. According to the Appellant, the car had been purchased by him from M/s. Everest Used Cars, UAE in U.S. $ 4000 plus U.S. $ 480 freight vide invoice No. 1560 dated 10-7-1999 and based on this value, the C F value of the car was U.S. $ 4480/.The Customs authorities did not accept this value and directed the Appellant to produce the Manufacturer's price list. The appellant was able to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) were cited. (ii) While the model of the Appellant's car is DX 4A/T (AEPBK), the model whose price has been adopted is Toyota Corolla Saloon 1996 model AE-110. The Deputy Commissioner has, therefore, erred in rejecting the invoice price and forcing the appellant to pay duty on the basis of car catalogue price of some different model of car. (iii) Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Segu Mohammed Hanas v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 218 (Tri. - Bang.) was cited wherein it was held that when in case of import of used car, invoice of purchase of car in for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odel, as given in Parker's Car guide and on this basis has determined the assessable value as Rs. 4,10,979/-. 3.1 When there is no allegation that the invoice dated 10-7-99 of M/s. Everest Used Cars, UAE, produced by the appellant is bogus or that the C F price mentioned in it does not reflect the true transaction value, and the conditions for accepting the declared transaction value, as given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, are not satisfied, there is no justification for rejecting the price mentioned in the invoice of the supplier and taking recourse to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. This Tribunal, in the case of Segu Mohammed Hanas (Supra), relying upon Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
