2000 (4) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Imported Tyres Classification Dispute Resolved: Fines Imposed, Appeal Disposed

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision that the imported tyres were not freely importable without a license under the EXIM Policy as they were not ... Import - OGL - Valuation Issues:1. Importability of tyres without license2. Valuation of imported tyresImportability of tyres without license:The appeal involved the question of whether the tyres imported by M/s. Rajnath Motors P. Ltd. were freely importable without a license as tyres meant for trucks, and whether the tyres were undervalued. The Additional Commissioner determined that the imported tyres were not classified as bus or truck tyres in the manufacturer's catalogue, concluding that they were either passenger car tyres or tyres for light trucks, vans, and station wagons, making them not freely importable under the EXIM Policy. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the distinction between truck tyres and tyres for light commercial vehicles. The Commissioner also found discrepancies in the declared prices compared to mail order catalogue prices, leading to the confiscation of the tyres, imposition of fines, and valuation based on the catalogue prices.Valuation of imported tyres:Regarding the valuation of the imported tyres, the appellants argued that the tyres could be used in sophisticated cars and commercial vans, including light commercial vehicles like Toyota and Mazda. They contended that the term 'truck' should encompass light commercial vehicles and relied on various legal precedents to support their position. The Department, however, maintained that the tyres were not described as truck tyres in the documentation and highlighted the differences between light commercial vehicles and trucks. The Tribunal ultimately found that certain tyres were indeed meant for trucks based on the manufacturer's catalogue, while others were for cars. The Tribunal accepted the transaction value declared by the importers, noting that the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation with substantial evidence. As a result, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for determining the redemption fine and penalty, with the appeal being disposed of accordingly.