TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adjudication Order). The Commissioner has stated that in the Bill of Entry, the invoice number is shown as nil dated 26-6-2006. But it is not clear while reading the Order-in-Original whether invoice itself was produced. We only want to indicate that no care is being taken while drafting adjudication order. The adjudication authority has stated that subsequently, the importer produced a receipt voucher No. 0042, dated 9-8-06 from M/s. Treasured Used car LLC for an amount of US $ 45,000/-. The above value is claimed as transaction value. Since, the above-mentioned document is dated after the import of the car, the value was not accepted. The assessable value was worked out based on the list price for new vehicle of SL 55 Model after allowin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter should have been in possession of the car abroad for at least one year prior to its import. In the present case, this condition has not been complied with and the appellant has not contested this violation. Therefore, the Commissioner has held that the car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the F.T. (D&R) Act, 1992. Therefore, the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the above findings, the confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are justified. 4. The other important issue is valuation. The appellant originally declared the value of the car at Rs. 3,00,000/-. By no stretch of imagination, this appears to be the corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of SL 5 model of 2003 make is Euro 109,100. Further, the department made a reference to M/s. Daimler Chryster India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. The authorized dealer of Mercedes Benz who has confirmed the Chasis No. and other particulars of the vehicle. They had given the list price as Euro 107,100 which is very close to the list price proposed by the department. The Commissioner has stated that the price furnished by the authorized dealer has more evidentiary value than the Blue Book value claimed by the importer. 5. The appellant has contended that the adjudicating authority has not given a finding that the car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. In that case there is no reason to hold that the value paid by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment was never given to the appellant and also there is no evidence that such price is meant for export into India. Another grievance of the appellant is that in spite of specific finding in the impugned order that in this type of luxury cars accessories are standard fitting, an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- has been added to CIF value as cost of extra fitting and refurbishing. 7. After going through the entire records of the case we find that the appellant cannot claim that his transaction value was rejected. First of all, initially a ridiculously low value of Rs. 3,00,000/- was declared to the Customs. Later, a receipt voucher dated 09-8-2006 was produced. The car was actually shipped on 09-5-2006, therefore, such a receipt voucher pro....