Misdeclaration and transfer of residence conditions upheld confiscation, while higher depreciation was allowed for valuation.

Misdeclaration in the import declaration was found where the motor car was described as a 1980 200D model, but the record showed a 1983 240D model. No evidence supported the claim that the car had been in the importer's use and possession for more than one year, so the transfer of residence condition under the Import Export Policy 1992-97 was not satisfied. Confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld. On valuation, the car was treated as a 1983 make imported in January 1993, and higher depreciation of 70% was allowed instead of 46%, giving the importer partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported motor car was liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of misdeclaration and non-compliance with the transfer of residence condition requiring prior use and possession for more than one year; (ii) Whether depreciation of 70% ought to be allowed in the valuation of the imported car.

Issue (i): Whether the imported motor car was liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of misdeclaration and non-compliance with the transfer of residence condition requiring prior use and possession for more than one year.

Analysis: The declaration stated that the car was a 1980 make and 200D model, whereas the departmental inquiry and the findings below showed that it was manufactured in 1983 and was a 240D model. The appellant did not produce evidence to support the plea of an earlier make or to displace the finding that the car was purchased on 25-11-1992 and exported the same day. No material was placed to prove that the car had been in the appellant's use for more than one year before return to India, which was a requirement under the Import Export Policy for 1992-97.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the motor car and the penalty were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation of 70% ought to be allowed in the valuation of the imported car.

Analysis: The car was found to be a 1983 make and had been imported in January 1993. In light of the departmental inquiry and the earlier Tribunal view that enhanced depreciation instructions could be applied to pending matters, the valuation could not be confined to 46% depreciation alone.

Conclusion: Depreciation of 70% was directed to be allowed in place of 46%.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and penalty was sustained, but the valuation of the imported car was reassessed by allowing higher depreciation, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

---