Tribunal Upholds Vehicle Confiscation & Penalty, Grants Benefit of Notification

The Tribunal upheld the valuation, confiscation of the vehicle, penalty, and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner. However, it granted the appellant the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of the imported car.
2. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002.
3. Confiscation of the car under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of the Imported Car:
The appellant imported a Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster LP640 from M/s. Hyperformance Cars Ltd., U.K., declaring a CIF value of GBP 1,75,000. The Revenue contended that the declared value was under-declared. The Commissioner rejected the declared value and re-determined it based on an invoice obtained from an informer, which was confirmed by the manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's valuation, noting that the appellant and the supplier were related persons, and the appellant failed to produce the original invoice or any counter-evidence. The Tribunal held that the correct transaction value was represented by the invoice produced by the Revenue.

2. Eligibility for the Benefit of Notification No. 21/2002:
The appellant sought the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002, which applies to new motor vehicles that have not been registered anywhere prior to importation. The vehicle was registered in the U.K. before importation, leading the Commissioner to deny the benefit. However, the Tribunal found that the vehicle's odometer showed zero reading, indicating it was new. The registration was done to comply with U.K. export formalities, not for use in the U.K. The Tribunal referred to C.B.E. & C. Circular 1/2005-Cus., which states that registration for export purposes should not disqualify the vehicle from the notification's benefit. Thus, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002.

3. Confiscation of the Car under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act:
The Commissioner confiscated the vehicle under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act for mis-declaration of value. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that the appellant intentionally under-declared the value to evade customs duty. The Tribunal found a clear-cut suppression of the original invoice, which justified the confiscation under Section 111(m).

4. Imposition of Penalty and Redemption Fine:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.20 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act and allowed the appellant to redeem the confiscated vehicle on payment of a fine of Rs. 5.50 lakhs. The Tribunal found the penalty and redemption fine to be appropriate and not excessive. The appellant's contention for adopting the dealer's import price in India or as per C.B.E. & C.'s instruction was rejected by the Tribunal, agreeing with the Revenue's stance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the valuation and confiscation of the vehicle, along with the imposed penalty and redemption fine. However, it granted the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.

---