Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Shri H.C. Rai Choudhury vs Collector Of Customs on 6 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(43)ELT96(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. Shri H.C. Rai Choudhury has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. S-49-31/84VL dated 19.7.84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported one Mazda 323 DX (Familia) 1983 model 1300 cc valued at Rs. 44616/- i.e. 'V. of car 41752' - + R/C 2864/-) ex. S.S. Lovceen vide Bill of Entry No. 1118/208; and had claimed its clearance under CCP No. 3067943/18-1-83. The appellant had claimed that the value of the same at US $ 3638 as indicated in the invoice dated 24.1.83 and in this invoice value had been confirmed by M/s. Sumitomo Corpn., Japan who are the sole selling agent of Mazda Cars. The Assistant Collector had computed the assessable value on the basis of the price list effective for October 83 furnished by M/s. Byford Ltd, Delhi. The appellant had contended that the said price list was not applicable as the car was imported in the month of September 1983 and the declared value had to be accepted. The Assistant Collector had rejected the request of the appellant and being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, he had filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The learned Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay had confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the manufacturer's invoice was not produced even at the appellage stage and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri Ashok Roy Choudhury, son of the appellant, has appeared. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal. Shri Ashok Roy Choudhury has pleaded that the value of the price list for October 1983 supplied by M/s Byford Ltd cannot be adopted as the importation was done much earlier. He has pleaded that the correct value of the car was at US $ 3638.00 c.i.f. Bombay. In support of his argument he has referred to the two certificates dated 24.10.84 issued by M/s Mazda Corporation and M/s Sumitomo Corporation. In the certificate of Mazda Corpn it has been mentioned - "We leave export business to Sumitomo Corporation in India, and accordingly CIF Price is offered by them, not by us. Therefore please obtain the price Certificate from them if necessary". Shri Ashok Choudhury states that in the certificate of Sumitomo Corpn. it is mentioned that a car was sold to the appellant against order No. BYFORD/MAZDA/131 and INVOICE NO. LJAE-83-0114 at a price of US $ 3638.00 CIF Bombay. Shri Ashok Choudhury states that there is no question of adopting the value on the basis of the price list for the period from October 1983 whereas the vehicle was imported in Sept. 1983 and as per invoice dated 24.1.1983 issued by M/s Byford Ltd the price of the car has been indicated at US $ 3638.00 and the same should be accepted.
4. Shri V.M. Doiphode, SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent states that he does not dispute the facts and he leaves the decision to the Bench.
5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are not disputed. The appellant had imported Mazda Car before October 1983 and as such the value cannot be taken on the basis of the price list for the period commencing from October 1983 and the appellant has filed certificate from Mazda, Japan to the effect that the CIF price for export is offered by Sumitomo Corporation in India and Sumitomo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. In the certificate they have clearly mentioned that the car was sold to the appellant against order No. BYFORD/MAZDA/131 and Invoice No. LJAE-83-0114 at a price of US $ 3638.00 CIF. It is surprising that the appellant, who is an individual and is not carrying on any business activity, the Customs Authorities are asking him to supply the price list etc. We hold that the lower authorities were not correct in adopting the value on the . basis of October 1983 price list of Byford Ltd. The value declared by the appellant at US $ 3638.00 CIF Bombay is correct. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.