2006 (5) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....996. Dispute arose about the validity of import license produced by the Appellant. That and other disputes delayed the clearance of the car till 28th March, 2005. 4. The car was purchased by the Appellant at a price of GBP 75,000 from a German party, namely M/s. Shone Fab Collection, Germany. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the sale price as basis for value on the ground that "the supplier does not appear to be dealing in second-hand car". Therefore, value was determined going by the catalogue price after granting a depreciation of 38% from the catalogue prices. 5. The respondent challenged the above order of valuation before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the appeal. He noted that the rejection of the tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion based on catalogue price after allowing proper depreciation. 8. But their main grievance is about the depreciation allowed. It is being pointed out that the order of the Commissioner is illegal in as much as Section 14 of the Custom Act stipulates that value shall be with reference to "price at the time of importation." The Learned SDR has emphasized that any depreciation after the importation of goods, for whatever reason, would be wholly illegal and cannot be allowed. 9. The Learned Council for the Appellant submits that the Commissioner was right in granting the higher depreciation. He has contended that the observations of the Commissioner on the factual aspects of the matter are entirely correct and sound, in as muc....