TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (7) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce he will address common arguments for all the appeals. He has taken up Appeal No. C/424/90-A filed by Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia and Appeal No. C/358/90-A filed by Shri Haren P. Choksey for arguments and has adopted the same arguments to the other appeals. 2. The learned advocate has argued that Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia, Shri Kamlesh Zaverilal Gandhi and Dr. (Mrs.) Ulupi A. Choksi imported one 'Honda Accord' car each. The cars were imported under Transfer of Residence Rules. Customs clearance permit was also produced. 3. In respect of the car imported by Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia, Bill of Entry for clearance of the car was filed on 11-11-1988. Value declared in the Bill of Entry was Rs. 70,000/-. In the Bill of Entry the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India. The importer has stated that he did not see the import invoice dated 24-4-1986 for Dirhams 32,000/-. He was not aware that the car was declared in the Bill of Entry to be of 1986 Model. The importer actually purchased the car in 1988 and made payment of Dirhams 35,000/- as its purchase price. The learned advocate has argued that the car should be assessed at Dirhams 35,000/-. The Collector has valued the car at Rs. 2,03,074/- on the basis of undisclosed information. The Collector did not disclose to the appellants the basis on which he valued the car at Rs. 2,03,074/-. This has resulted in the denial of natural justice. The learned advocate has drawn our attention to the photo copy of a letter No. SM/48/89 dated 29-1-1989 written by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....handrasekharan has argued that his statements were recorded on 9-12-1988 and 10-12-1988 when he was under arrest. He was bailed out on 13-12-1988. The statements were recorded under duress and hence no penal action could be taken against him on the basis of the said statements. He has, therefore, challenged the penalty imposed on Shri Choksey. Although he has mentioned that penalty was imposed without giving him a personal hearing by the Collector, he has not pleaded for denial of natural justice and has given up this point. He has argued on merits of the case only. 6. We have gone through the records of the case and the arguments of the learned advocate and of the learned Senior Departmental Representative. The learned Senior Departmental....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ully covers this value, the car was not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. However, the importer did not declare Dirhams 35,000/- as the value of the car for the purpose of assessment. The value was misdeclared as Dirhams 32,000/-. The correct model of the car was also not declared. The car was misdeclared to be of 1986 model. The rupee equivalent of Dirhams 35,000/-was approximately Rs. 1,40,000/-. In the Bill of Entry the value was declared to be Rs. 70,000/- only. The value was, therefore, misdeclared to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- approximately. The rate of duty was 245%. The car was liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Custom....