2007 (3) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on was not complied with. Therefore, revenue proceeded against the appellant. The Original Authority decided the issue without the Show Cause Notice on the request of the appellant. The car was examined by the customs officers. They found that it was a used car but reconditioned with repainting and replacement of certain parts like tyres of Dunlop brands, tubeless radials, seat upholstery, etc. The Original Authority held that the car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, the invoice value was not accepted by the Original Authority on the ground that the invoice mentions the address of the consignee as Dubai, which means that the car is not sold for exportation to India. Further, the car was sol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abroad at lower rates. Hence, the appellant has imported a used car for his bona fide personal use and the price paid includes cost of accessories fitted in the car. The appellant has not carried out any modification or refurnishing as assessed by the appraising officer. Accessories considered for assessment as additional fittings are the standard accessories of this model car. Hence, no addition is to be made towards accessories for refurnishing. (iii) The import is for personal use and not for profit motive. Hence, the penalty imposed is not justified. (iv) The redemption fine has been imposed without considering the margin of profit. (v) The detention and confiscation of imported car by the Respondent for a long period is illega....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the ITO condition of minimum one year possession of the car abroad was not complied with. To this extent there is violation of the policy condition and therefore, the imported car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Therefore, we uphold the confiscation. 5.1 As regards the valuation of the imported car, we find that there is an invoice 0289 dated 14-11-2005 issued by Cougar Motors FZCO who appear to be the dealers in new and used motor vehicles. The model is indicated to be of year 2003. Therefore, the car does not appear to be new. The transaction value is US $ 20,500. Revenue has not spelt out the grounds for rejected the transaction value. There is no evidence that the invoice produced is forged. ....