Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (6) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urer s website. Therefore, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the value adopted by the ld.Adjudicating authority is not acceptable in the absence of any other value of the said goods available at that time. Therefore, the declared value is to be accepted - there are no infirmity in the above observations. Further, it is the fact that the vehicle was manufactured in June 2007 as declared by the manufacturer and the registration was in August 2007, which was manufactured by the respondent vide Invoice of June, 2007 and the Bill of Lading was also available of July 2007. In that circumstances, the vehicle was registered only for the purposes of transportation for the Port. Therefore, it cannot be held that the vehicle was o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7 from Kolkata Port. The respondent was summoned to produce import documents, who provided invoices, bill of lading, bank remittance advice, challan for payment of Customs duty along with car insurance policy and RTO registration certificate on 25.09.200. Scrutiny of the documents revealed that the vehicle was sold, shipped and subsequently cleared in India by M/s Pride City General Trading LLC of Dubai. The vehicle was sold for US$ 62337 vide Invoice No.PJ/2007/JAP/1012 dated 20.06.2007 for import clearance Invoice No. PJ/2007/JAP/1012 dated 20.06.2007 for US$ 8679 was issued. The respondent remitted the total US$ 71016 against these invoices to M/s Pride City General Trading LLC on 25.07.2007. The Customs House Agent submitted the import .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rkers.co.uk as the vehicle was meant for U.K.. It was proposed that as the vehicle was used, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is not available. Accordingly, the vehicle was liable for confiscation and redemption fine and penalty are imposable. 2.2 The adjudicating authority examined the issue and the documents and rejected the declared value and held that as the prices of the goods sold in other markets or territories cannot be the basis for determination of assessable value of the identical or similar goods in India. Therefore, he held that the proposed method of valuation do not conform with the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, as neither th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom the manufacturer s website. Therefore, he held that as the value assessed by the adjudicating authority was not proposed in the show-cause notice, therefore, the said value cannot be taken as correct assessable value. He also held that the Department has failed to prove any additional payments other than the payment declared by the respondent. 2.4 He further held that at the time of clearance of the vehicle by the Customs Officials, it was opined that the car is a new one. Moreover, the admitted fact is that the car was manufactured in June 2007 and first time, it was registered in August, 2007 and the vehicle was imported in July, 2007. In that circumstances, it was held by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) that although the vehicle was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng was also available of July 2007. In that circumstances, the vehicle was registered only for the purposes of transportation for the Port. Therefore, it cannot be held that the vehicle was old and used. In that circumstances, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly given the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.344. 6. Therefore, we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation as the facts are not controverted by any cogent evidence. We, therefore, find that at the time of import, the vehicle was physically examined and found new one. In that circumstances, we hold that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.344. Consequently, we do not find any i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates