2017 (6) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly). Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a Bill of Entry No. 269318 dated 17.05.2010 for the clearance of one used Nissan Safari, Model 1999 vehicle with a declared value of 8800 USD. The importer claimed the assessment of the vehicle in terms of para 3(I) of the Import Licensing Notes to Chapter 87 of Schedule 1 (Imports) to the ITC Classifications of Export and Import item. An invoice bearing No. 26203 was submitted along with the Bill of Entry which was issued by M/s. Rama D.B.K. of Japan on 02.03.2010. Since the document filed by the importer was insufficient and therefore the importer was directed to produce proof evidencing possession of the vehicle by him. In the absence of any such evidence forthcoming, the v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). The re-determination of the value of the car by the original authority was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue has filed the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have allowed the redemption of the vehicle and should have ordered for its re-export as the same was imported in violation of the conditions of the policy. 2. I have considered the submissions of the learned AR. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. After going through the impugned order, I find that the learned Commissioner has given sufficient reasons for allowing the appeal of the assessee for redeeming the confiscated vehicle on ....