Declared value of imported vehicle cannot be rejected without proof; exemption and penalty fail absent evidence of prior use or abetment

Declared value of an imported vehicle cannot be rejected on allegations of optional accessories or contemporaneous imports without concrete supporting evidence, and a comparison with imports from a different country is not a proper basis for undervaluation. The vehicle cannot be treated as old and used, or denied exemption under Notification No. 21/2002, unless prior registration or actual use abroad is proved. Mere arrangement of funds for customs duty, without proof of participation in the offence, does not attract penalty under the Customs Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared value of the imported vehicle could be rejected on the basis of alleged optional accessories and contemporaneous imports; (ii) whether the vehicle could be treated as old and used so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002; and (iii) whether penalty was sustainable on the person alleged to have arranged funds for payment of duty.

Issue (i): whether the declared value of the imported vehicle could be rejected on the basis of alleged optional accessories and contemporaneous imports;

Analysis: The vehicle was examined at the time of import and the record showed it to be new with standard accessories. The allegation that navigation equipment and other items were installed at import was not supported by concrete evidence. The vehicle was imported from a different country than the relied-upon comparable imports, and the contemporaneous import relied upon by the department was therefore not a proper basis for comparison. A lower value found in another comparable bill of entry also militated against the allegation of suppression of value.

Conclusion: The rejection of declared value and the consequent demand on account of undervaluation were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the vehicle could be treated as old and used so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002;

Analysis: The examination report at import showed the vehicle to be new, and there was no evidence that it had been registered for use abroad before import into India. The inference that it was old and used rested only on presumption drawn from its prior movement through another entity, which was insufficient in the absence of proof of prior registration or use. The claimed classification as a used vehicle was therefore not established.

Conclusion: Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 was not justified.

Issue (iii): whether penalty was sustainable on the person alleged to have arranged funds for payment of duty;

Analysis: Mere arrangement of money or a loan for payment of customs duty does not, by itself, amount to aiding, abetting, or any other conduct attracting penalty under the Customs Act in the absence of proof of involvement in the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on that person was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation-related findings, denial of exemption, and penalties were all set aside, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of declared import value and denial of exemption require concrete evidence of misdeclaration or prior use, while penalty under the Customs Act cannot rest merely on financial assistance unconnected with the offending act.

---