JAS KIRAN KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 31 -7 -1997 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.

(2.) THE appellant filed the Bill of Entry No. 787, dated .. at CFS Ludhiana for the clearance of one used Honda Civic Car of Model 1991 and 4 number of used Car Tyre. She submitted the invoice No. 276, dated 5 -10 -1996 issued by M/s. Daichi International Trading Co. Ltd., ABV Shaghara Street old Airport Road, Sharjah, UAE of 5900 Dirhams (CIF Value). The Assistant Collector who adjudicated the matter was of the view that since the invoice was not the invoice issued by the Manufacturer of the Car, the invoice, as such, cannot be accepted and, accordingly, he has determined the price of the car based upon the Parker's Car Price Guide and Japanese Car Catalogue after giving depreciation as per rule and freight amounting to Rs. 30,388/ - and insurance at the rate of 1,125/ - of the FOB value of car amounting to Rs. 2,551/ -was added as per norms. He has ordered for confiscation of old tyres giving option to redeem the same at the redemption fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - Under Section 111 of the Customs Act and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively on the ground that the appellant has not got valid licence for importation of tyres.

(3.) ARGUING for the appellant, Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Advocate, submits that there was no reason to discard the transaction value in this case. The transaction between the Importer and the Seller was at arm's length and the genuineness of the transaction was not doubted by the authorities below. In these circumstances, the department should have accepted the invoice value as normal value in determining the assessable value. In respect of the importation of the second hand -car, he submitted that the issue involved in this case has been squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 120 (T) in the case of Yogeshwar Varma v. C.C., New Delhi. He drew our attention to Para 4 of the said judgment wherein it was observed that contention of the party therein is that the car is imported under an invoice and the Collector has not doubted the genuineness of the invoice value. Having not doubted the genuineness of the invoice value, he ought to have accepted the true value under rules of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.