Page 231 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN v. HAMZA MOHAMMED KUNHI 141

reply to most of the questions put to him during cross-examination. He further
submitted that during cross-examination the said representatives expressed his
ignorance about the contents of the letter dated 19-12-2005 and reason for issuing
such letter is without any demand from Customs Authority. He further submit-
ted that as far as valuation of the car is concerned, the importer has in fact pur-
chased the used car Toyota Land Cruiser, 1998 model “as is where is” condition
for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-Dhs from M/s. Treasure Used Cars LLC, the car
dealer arranged export of the car along with invoice. He further submitted that
there is no evidence on record to show that invoice value is not the full transac-
tion value and there is no admissible evidence regarding misdeclaration of any
relevant details. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following deci-
sions :
 Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2009
(233) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.-Bang.)
 Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2009 (244) E.L.T.
4 (S.C.)
 Segu Mohammed Hanas v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2006 (196)
E.L.T. 218 (Tri.-Bang.)
 Ahammed Kunhi v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2007 (218)
E.L.T. 270 (Tri.-Chennai).
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of
the material on record, we find that the respondent-importer has purchased the
used Toyota Land Cruiser of 1998 model for the price of Rs. 45,000/- Dirhams
from a dealer in Dubai and the invoice of the same is on record. Further, we find
that the allegation of the Department is that the respondent has tampered with
the chassis number of the vehicle whereas as per the enquires made by the De-
partment from Toyota Kirlosakar Motors, Bangalore they found that the model
of the vehicle is 2003 and therefore in order to save Customs duty, the importer
has misdeclared the year of manufacture and also the valuation. Further we find
that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has considered all these
aspects in detail and after considering all these grounds, the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any physical evidence of
tampering, clarification of interested third party cannot be a sufficient reason for
rejection of the invoice value. Further, we find that in the first round of litigation
this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction
to afford an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the signatory of the
documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Further, we find that in-
stead of the person who has signed the letter dated 19-12-2005 some other person
was produced for cross-examination who during the cross-examination ex-
pressed ignorance about the contents of the letter dated 19-12-2005 and the rea-
son for issuing the said letter. Further it is pertinent to reproduce the findings of
the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has given the reasons for allowing the
appeal of the importer. The said finding is reproduced herein below :
“…..It has been urged by the learned advocate that TKM is an interested
party as they import new cars and import of second hand cars of same
company at cheaper price can adversely affect the import of new cars.
There is force in this argument. What is important is that they only stated
that there is a possibility of tampering with the Chassis number and not
Engine number. But investigation has nowhere established that there was

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  231