M A JACKSON Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate tribunal (Special bench at New Delhi) (hereinafter called the CEGAT) dated 30/11/1988 dismissing the appeal of the appellant with slight modification in favour of the appellant

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant returned to India in 1984 from Dubai on transfer of residence availing benefits of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978. While coming back from Dubai, she brought along with her, one used Volvo car 244 GLE Model 1982 which was under her use in Dubai. This car had been purchased by the appellant's husband on 10/3/1982 under Invoice No. 216/10/3/1982 from one Mohd. Abdul Rahman AC Bahar, Sharjah for 38,000. 00 Dirhams (UAE) which included 10% dealer's commission and sea- freight charges from Sweden to Dubai, apart from duty, clearance, transport and bank charges at the rate of 7%. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry 213/6/ 12/1984 at the Inland Container Depot, Bangalore. The Customs authorities assessed the value of the car at Rs 53,305.44 and assessed duty at 150% (Rs 79,958.16, Auxiliary duty at 40% (Rs 21,322.18 and Additional duty of Customs (Rs 24,915.75, in all, Rs 1,26,196. 09. According to the appellant, the above assessable value was arrived at by giving 15% discount as against normal discount at 20% otherwise available in the Middle East countries and depreciation was worked out only at 35.5% instead of 38%. The appellant paid the duty under protest on 8/12/1984 and obtained clearance of the vehicle on the same date. The appellant wrote a detailed letter on 30/1/1985 requesting refund of alleged excess amount of duty paid by her

(3.) A show-cause notice dated 17/6/1985 was issued by the Superintendent of Customs, Bangalore, under Section 28 (1 of the Customs Act, 1962 asking the appellant to show cause against alleged short levy of customs duty of Rs 1,40,174.70 which was worked out on the basis that the assessable value of the car was Rs 1,21,603. 00 rather than Rs 53,605.44 p. The appellant sent a reply staling that the duty payable had already been paid, that the value of the car in UAE was always 20% higher than the actual price of the vehicle in the country of origin and that in the absence of the manufacturer's price which was not readily available, she had paid the duty as assessed, under protest, to avoid demurrage and that no details have been given in the show-cause notice as to how the basis of alleged short levy was arrived at