CESTAT upholds exemption for imported 2013 Nissan, rejects department's used vehicle and undervaluation claims under Notification 21/2002

CESTAT Chennai dismissed department's appeal regarding import of 2013 Nissan vehicle. Department alleged car was used and undervalued, seeking confiscation and denying exemption under Notification 21/2002. Tribunal held car was new with only 121 km reading, noting UAE registration was for technical compliance, not road use. Following precedents, registration for formalities doesn't make vehicle "used." GSO conformity certificate was adequate despite right-hand drive specification. No evidence of undervaluation existed when value was easily verifiable online. Australian import values couldn't determine assessable value due to destination-based pricing differences. Commissioner (Appeals) order granting exemption and setting aside confiscation was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported vehicle qualifies as a "new vehicle" under the relevant import regulations.
2. Whether the valuation of the imported vehicle was correctly determined by the adjudicating authority.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Qualification as a New Vehicle
The primary contention was whether the imported '2013 Nissan Petrol Car Upper Grade ASR SPEC (13-999)' could be considered a new vehicle. The adjudicating authority had initially held that the vehicle was not new, citing its prior sale and registration in UAE. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the vehicle, though sold by the manufacturer in Japan to a dealer in Dubai, had not been used or registered for use, thus qualifying it as new. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting the vehicle's minimal mileage (121 km) and referencing previous decisions (Lorenzo Bestonso Vs CC, Abbas Kurma Puthoor Vs. CC) which clarified that registration for export purposes does not equate to use. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the vehicle was new and eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 21/2002.

Issue 2: Valuation of the Imported Vehicle
The adjudicating authority had rejected the declared transaction value of AED 2,15,000 (CIF) and re-determined the assessable value to Rs. 53,50,433/-, based on a comparison with a model from an Australian website. The Commissioner (Appeals) found this method unsustainable, emphasizing that valuation should be based on comparable evidence specific to the same model and region. The Tribunal concurred, citing the absence of contemporaneous imports and the lack of evidence for undervaluation. It was noted that the adjudicating authority failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the transaction value, which should be the basis for assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced precedents (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs NIPPON BEARING PVT LTD, BASAND INDUSTRIES Vs COLLECTOR) to support the necessity of clear reasons for rejecting transaction values. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the declared value and dismissed the department's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)' order to be legal and proper, allowing the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and setting aside the order of confiscation and enhancement of the vehicle's value. The department's appeal was dismissed.

---