TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JUDGEMENT PER: D.N.PANDA Appeal No. C/663/2008 & C/835/2008 Appeal No. C/663/2008 & C/835/2008 filed by Revenue and assessee respectively are cross appeals against same adjudication order dated 28.7.2008. 2.1 Revenue's grievance in its Appeal No. C-663/2008 is that the car imported from United Kingdom was not the country of manufacture while country of manufacture was Austria and was under- valued by the assessee for which learned Adjudicating Authority should have valued the same appropriately for levy of duty, redemption fine and imposed penalty followed by interest for the mis-declaration of value of the import made by Respondent importer. 2.2 Learned D.R. Shri V.P. Batra says that the Adjudicating Authority did not examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the country of origin of the cars imported was different from the country of export of the cars in both cases of Revenue. Value declared by the respondents was accepted by ld.Adjudicating Authority without causing any enquiry into the value of the cars in the country of origin. Review Committee has brought out clearly as to the legal infirmity in the order passed by ld. Adjudicating Authority in appeal No. C-663/2008 and C-662/2008 when proper value of cars imported was not determined by ld.Adjudicating Authority for levy of duty redemption fine as well as penalty and interest. 5.2 Grounds of Review stated by Review Committee show depression of value of cars imported and there is substance in the appeal of Revenue when the observations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority should have asked the importer to produce manufacturer's invoice, as the import was not found the manufacture, and to supply information about the amount paid by the dealer to the manufacturer for the impugned car. The importer also, though required under the Valuation Rules, did not produce the manufacturers invoice and amount paid by the dealer to the manufacturer with a dishonest intention to suppress the true value of the car and to evade payment of due Customs duty. Non-supply of the above document/information coupled with the huge difference in the value declared and the price found on internet is sufficient to show that the sale invoices an abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price. The transaction value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders the impugned car liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act as well. As liability to confiscation on account of mis-declaration of value was not considered by the adjudicating authority while allowing redemption, fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 3,00,000/- needs to be suitably enhanced. Further, in view of the true value of the goods being Rs. 79,19,376/- as against the declared assessable value of Rs. 40,43,535/- fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 111(d) and personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 112 imposed are not commensurate with the offence and merit enhancement. It is further obvious from the above that the importer willfully suppressed the true value of the impugned car and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 11 of the Customs Act 1962 throws light that if the Central Govt. is satisfied that it is necessary to so to do for any of the purposes specified in sub section (2) Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962, it may, by Notification in official Gazette prohibit either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the Notification, the import or export of goods of any specified description. Sub-section (2) (u) specifies that contravention of any law for the time being in force may be prevented by the Customs. 5.5 The car import policy being the law of the land which was subject matter of scrutiny by Customs and Import having been made under that policy, contravention of that law is....