TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who was engaged in clearance of such vehicles from the Customs. Shri Halde gave a list of vehicles and the list contained a Lexus LS 460 Car imported by the respondent having office in Mumbai. The car was imported vide Bill of Entry No.376162 dated 16.11.2007 from Kolkata Port. The respondent was summoned to produce import documents, who provided invoices, bill of lading, bank remittance advice, challan for payment of Customs duty along with car insurance policy and RTO registration certificate on 25.09.200. Scrutiny of the documents revealed that the vehicle was sold, shipped and subsequently cleared in India by M/s Pride City General Trading LLC of Dubai. The vehicle was sold for US$ 62337 vide Invoice No.PJ/2007/JAP/1012 dated 20.06.2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent was recorded and the vehicle was seized and the value of the vehicle was proposed to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 on the basis of value available on Parker's website www.parkers.co.uk as the vehicle was meant for U.K.. It was proposed that as the vehicle was used, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is not available. Accordingly, the vehicle was liable for confiscation and redemption fine and penalty are imposable. 2.2 The adjudicating authority examined the issue and the documents and rejected the declared value and held that as the prices of the goods sold in other markets or territories cannot be the basis for deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld the lower authority has held that the value proposed in the show-cause notice is not acceptable and the declared value is also not acceptable and they do not stand to legal test and only option left for valuation is taking shelter of the value available from the manufacturer's website. Therefore, he held that as the value assessed by the adjudicating authority was not proposed in the show-cause notice, therefore, the said value cannot be taken as correct assessable value. He also held that the Department has failed to prove any additional payments other than the payment declared by the respondent. 2.4 He further held that at the time of clearance of the vehicle by the Customs Officials, it was opined that the car is a new one. Moreove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further take note of the fact that it is the fact that the vehicle was manufactured in June 2007 as declared by the manufacturer and the registration was in August 2007, which was manufactured by the respondent vide Invoice of June, 2007 and the Bill of Lading was also available of July 2007. In that circumstances, the vehicle was registered only for the purposes of transportation for the Port. Therefore, it cannot be held that the vehicle was old and used. In that circumstances, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly given the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl.No.344. 6. Therefore, we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation as the facts are not controverted by any cogent evidence. We, therefore, f....