TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails of the shipper were not available in the invoice. The invoice did not carry the complete description of the car imported. Instead of "Toyota Landcruiser Amazon TD", the description contained in the invoice was "Toyota Landcruiser". The invoice also did not show the engine number of the car. These were crucial factors which had a bearing on the value of the vehicle. In the above circumstances, the original authority rejected the invoice value as the transaction value relevant for assessment. She determined the transaction value in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007(CVR) based on the list price of the vehicle. As the vehicle was imported from UK, the list price was taken from the website of Toyota, UK. The date of production of the vehicle in question was ascertained from Toyota, UK to be 29/3/2005. After allowing trade discount of 15% and depreciation of 50% considering the age of the vehicle, the Additional Commissioner determined the assessable value at Rs.13,83,150/- based on the basic price of Pound Sterling 39,408.51. Rs.30,000/- towards the appraised cost of refurbishing the vehicle was added to the basic price.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the CVR. The price list apparently did not indicate the price of the car for sale to India. Further, sale of used cars would not be at price list prices. Unless the transaction value was found to be not fully commercial, the assessment had to be carried out based on the transaction value. In the instant case, no evidence was forthcoming to show that the declared value was not the full transaction value. Moreover, the impugned vehicle had not been refurbished as found; upholstery and paint of the car were original; there was no justification to reject the invoice on the ground that some particulars of the car were not mentioned in the invoice. There was no stipulation that the invoice of a car should contain such details. The invoice was issued by a reputed car dealer in Dubai. b. The appellant had lived in a country where right hand drive vehicles were not allowed. Therefore, there was no illegality in the subject import. Issue regarding non-compliance of import condition while importing car into India in similar cases was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ICD, TKD Vs. J.S. Gujral [2009(235) ELT 414 (Del.)], Hon#ble High Court of Chennai in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Undervaluation has to be proved. If the charge of undervaluation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence..." b. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. D.M. International [2009(237) ELT 306 (Tri. Del.)] While rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal, inter-alia, observed that in Dunlop India Ltd. & others Vs. UOI &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouza Lawerence Vs. CC(Appeals), Cochin [2007(215) ELT 400 (Tri. Bang.)] 6. Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue has tried to justify the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the consignor was declared in the Bill of Entry as Mrs. T. William, Dial House, West Midlands, UK. Mrs. T. William did not find mention in the invoice submitted along with the Bill of Entry. The invoice showed that the consideration was received in advance i.e. in Dubai, whereas both the consignor and vehicle were in UK. The Bill of Ladin was issued in Liverpool and the shipper was Mrs. T. William, West Midlands, UK, port of loading Felixstowe and port of discharge Cochin. The vehicle was therefore dispatched from UK directly to Cochin. There was no mention of refurbishment expenses though the vehicle was found to be refurbished on examination. The vehicle was illegally imported contravening policy provisions. The importer had waived issuance of show-cause notice. The authorities had ascertained value of a vehicle of the same make and model from the Parker's Price List after allowing discount, depreciation and considering refurbishment cost etc. The working of the assessable value was intimated to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts considered by the Tribunal in the decisions relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we remand this aspect of the dispute by setting aside the order of fine and penalty. 7.4. As regards the valuation issue, we find that the ratio of the case laws cited by the appellant cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In Eicher Tractors Ltd. case (supra), the Apex Court had ruled that transaction value could be rejected only where the same was not acceptable for the reasons statutorily particularized in Rule 4(2) of the CVR, 1988. Though these rules have since been replaced by a new set of rules, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment cannot be held to be not applicable. In the said case the invoice value had been rejected though the special circumstances specified in Rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 were absent. In the Prodelin India (P) Ltd. case (supra), the authorities had rejected the transaction value without establishing that the same was not the true and complete consideration exchanged for the goods imported. In the Bureau Veritas case (supra), the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal finding that the transaction was not covered by the exceptions ....