9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same on arrival in India, the appellant filed a bill of entry dated 03.11.2008, which was subjected to examination and the proper officer of customs at the time of import assessed the value of the car at Rs.32, 06, 952. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant had availed concessional duty benefit in terms of serial number 344(2) of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The car was thus assessed and permitted to be cleared upon the appellant remitting the duty at the rate of 60%. 2. It appears that there was an investigation into the imports of high-end cars, by the officers of DRI, Ahmedabad. During the course of investigation, statements from Mr.Alberto Bestonso, appeared to have been the recorded, who is shown to have ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with penalties under Sections114A & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962?" 4. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Sathyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner, appeared for the department. 5. Having heard both sides, we have also carefully perused the orders of both the authorities below and the documents filed along with the appeal memo. 5.1 We find from the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority has referred to the website of the car manufacturer, internet value, etc. to determine the assessable value of the car which was imported. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has also referred to the statement of Alberto, but he has not considered the crucial fact that said Alberto had retracted his stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the dealer as to whether there was any flow of consideration over and above the declared value by the appellant. Apparently, no such exercise seems to be done as nothing is placed before us, rather reliance is solely placed on an e-mail correspondence obtained, not by the appellant but by the DRI itself. 8. The other aspect which perhaps influenced the Original Authority for computing/re-determining the assessable value in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 9, was the value at which the car was allegedly purchased by M/s. Hiperformance cars, UK at USD 91, 937 [8,900,000 Yen converted into USD]. To this, an element of profit/commission/brokerage was added since revenue assumed that M/s. Hiperformance cars had in turn sold the same to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
