9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In addition, it has been ordered that the car be assessed based on the ex-factory price in Japan as per the Red Book after allowing admissible reduction of 8% towards domestic tax/VAT and 15% towards trade discount. 2. The appellants contend that the adjudication order is not sustainable in law or on the facts of the case. With regard to the confiscation, it is their submission that the show cause notice had proposed confiscation of the car for violation of the terms of DGFT P.N. No. 3 (RE-2000)/1997-2002, dated 31-3-2000 as well as under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act for undervaluation. The appellants have pointed out that the Commissioner had held in the order that "confiscation under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also submitted that this value compares favourably with the list price of the car. It is further pointed out that the Commissioner's, order has gone even beyond the valuation proposed in the show cause notice inasmuch as it has taken an ex-factory value of 3935000 Yen for the Car as against the value of 3050000 Yen proposed in the Show Cause Notice. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that it is well settled that the adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. On the valuation it is also a grievance of the appellant that the authorities have made separate addition towards accessories while the price of the accessories remained included in the price of the car. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Taxes. Further, as noted by the Commissioner 15% is to be allowed towards trade discount. According to the learned Counsel the price mentioned in the invoice compares closely to the Red Book value. Another point being made is that the car is of 2000 Model while the Red Book price taken is of 2001. It is being pointed out that Commissioner was not right in his finding that the change of year does not make any difference to the value. 6. It is clear from the records that the appellant was within her entitlement to import the car. The purchase invoice contained the appellant's signature and this signature has not been proved as forged. Other than the appellant's own retracted statement, there is no evidence to show that somebody else was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
