COMMISSIONER OF CUS., COCHIN Vs. NAUFAL PAZHAYAPURA KUNHAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE as filed this appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. 218/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A), Cochin.

(2.) THE respondents imported a used Toyota Alphard of 2003 make along with invoice dated 3 -10 -2007. The respondent came for permanent settlement on 15 -12 -2007. The lower authority proceeded against the respondent for non -fulfillment of the pre -import condition of minimum one year possession and use abroad. Moreover, the credibility of invoice was also doubted. The invoice did not contain important details like year of manufacture, odometer reading, specification of the vehicle, etc. which are normally available in all transactions related to car. Hence, the lower authority confiscated the car valued at Rs. 7,73,893/ - under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. However, redemption option was given on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - was imposed. The respondent approached the Commissioner (A) for relief. The Commissioner (A) has given the following findings. The invoice concerned mentions the chassis number, engine number, colour, luxury accessories like TV navigation, leather electric seats, sunroof, the name of the importer and Cochin as destination; the Bill of Lading tallies with the description entirely. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason for rejection of invoice value. Rule 12(2)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules refer to non declaration of parameters such as brand, grade specifications that have relevance to value; the relevant parameters are mentioned in the invoice. The justification given for getting the car from Japan rather than buying one in Dubai, namely, India does not permit import of left -hand driven cars which only is available in Dubai, seems quite reasonable. Honble CESTAT, Bangalore bench have repeatedly held that in such circumstances, invoice value should not be rejected. One such Order [2006 (196) E.L.T. 218 (T -B)] has been accepted by the Honble Supreme Court also. CESTAT has also held that no addition is required to be made as accessories are standard in the luxury cars. I therefore accept the invoice value as the assessable value. Since value is considerably reduced, I also accordingly reduce the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - respectively.

(3.) REVENUE is aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner (A) on the following grounds.