http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M.A. JACKSON

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1997

BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, SUHAS C. SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.       This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the  appellant against the  judgment   of  the  Customs.  Excise  and  Gold General Appellate   Tribunal  (Special   Bench A.  New Delhi thereinafter called  the CEGAT)  dated 30.11.1988 dismissing the appeal  of the  appellant with a slight modification  in favour of the  appellant.      The facts  of the  case are as follows:-      The   appellant returned   to India  in 1984 from Dubai transfer   of   residence availing benefits of  the Transfer of Residence Rules,  1978. While coming path from Dubai. She brought along  with her.   One  use Volvo  car 244 GLE Model 1982 which  was under  her use  in Dubai, This Ear had  been purchased by  the appellant’s   husband   on 10.3.1982 under involve   No.  216 10.3.1982 from  one achd Abdul Rahman A G Bahar, Sharjah  for 30.000 Dirhanis (use)  which include 10% dealers   commission   and see-freight  charges from  Sweden to Dubai.   Apart from duty.  clearance.  Transport and bank charges at the rate  of the Appellant filed a Bill  of Entry 219/8.12.1984 at   the  Inland container  Depot.   Bangalore The   customs authorities     assessed the value  of the car at Rs.   53.305.44   and  assessed  duty    at  150%  (  Rs. 70,000,00 according   to the appellant the above  assessable value   was   arrived at by giving  15%  discount as against normal   discount   at 20%   otherwise   available   in  the Middle East   countries   and  depreciation was  worked  out only at  35.5%   instead of  38% .  The  appellant paid  the duty under  protest on  8.12.1984 and obtained  clearance of the   vehicle on the same  date.  Appellant wrote a detailed letter on   30.1.1985  requesting refund  of alieged  excess amount  of duty paid by her.      A show- cause notice dated 7.6.1985 was  issued  by the Superintendent   of customs.   Bangalore,  under  section 20 (1) of the Customs  Act.  1982 asking the appellant to show- cause against  alleged short  levy of  customs   duty of Rs. 1,40,170,70 which  was worked  out on   the basis  that  the assessable value   of the car  was Rs.  1,12,409 rather than Rs. 99,809,44  P.  The  appellant sent a reply stating  that the duty   payable   had already  been paid  that  the value

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of the  car in  UAE was always  20%  higher than  the actual price of  the vehicle in the counting at origin  and that in the absense   of  the manufacturer’s   price  which was  not readlly   available,   she had  paid the   duty as assessed, under protest,   to avoid demurrage and that no details have been given   in the show- causes notice  as to how the basis of alleged short levy was arrived at.      After 2  years and  3 monts.  the appellant received an order dated  20.8.1997 from   the  Assistant collector    of customs .  Inland Container Depot,  Banglore. In that  orde. it was  mentionde that  a comparison  was   made   with  a " pride  list"  and  axxordingly.  the  assessable  value  was reworked at  Rs. 96,850  as against the proposes  assessable value of  Rs. 1,21,803 mentioned in  the show  cause notice. The order  statedc that  the additionel duty payable was Rs. 89,715,91  rather  than  Rs. 1,40,163.75 propose in the show cause   notice.  Appeal was preferred before the collector ( Appelas )   Madras contending , interalia. that there was no reason to  reject Volva’a  letter dated 5.11.1985  that  the appelaants were  not shown the world  Car  catalogue or Auto car   magazins Appeal  was   dismissed in  b, cus,    889/87 dated 18.11.1987,      The  appellant  filed  and  appeal  nbefor  ther  CEGAT contanding that  the price-lists  referred  to in  the order of the  collector   werer  not  disolosed to the  appellant, there was  no   short levy  of duty  and the additional levy was time   barred.   The appellant contended  that there was an reason not to accept the invoice price submittecd by  the appellant or  Volvo’s  letter dated 5.11.1985, However , the CEGAT dismissed  the appeal  by order  No,  580  of  1988(A) dated 21.11.1988.   It  is against  the said  order tht this appeal has  been preferred  under   745 (L)  of the  Castoms Act. 1982.      We have   heard   the  arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.  he submitted that no reasons  were given by  the   authorities  as   to  why     the   manufacturer’s certificate dated  5.11.1985 was  not accepted.   The  price atated in  the   Auto  Car  magazine was  not even  referred to in  the show-  cause  notice,  not  was  a  copy  thereof furnished to  the appellant  at any  time  either cerore the Assistant Collector  or the  collector   (Appeas m or before the CEGAT.   Only   an  extract of the  prices mentioned  in the Auto   car   magazine  was given   to  the CEGAT.  It is contended that  there  are  no    grounds  for  raising  the assessable  value.       In this  aspecial leave  petition  no  reply has  been filed   by  the  respondents  to  deny  the  fact  that  the magazine which  was    referred  to  in  the  order  of  the Assistnat collector   or  in the order  of the Calleotar was applied   to the    petitioner.  The    magazine  was    not referred to  in the  show cause  notice. A  reading   at the under   at the  CEGAT    show  that    an  extriact  of  the priceslist of  the magazine   was   pleced  before the CEGAT for the   first  time.  the CEGAT  accepted the use tharedal by the  customs  authorities in their  orders so far  as the certificate regarding   price   issued  by   the manufacture submitted   by the   petitioner   was  conoerned.  the CEGAT ignored the  same   as it  was    issued  after  the  actual purchase of the  car by the  importer.      In our  view.  Once  it  is  admitted  that  the  price mentioned in   the  magazine was  not  mentioned in the show cause   notice  issued  to the  petitoner . any  reliance on the said  price mentioned  in the  megazine  by the  customs authorities must   be  held to  be illegal.   Further  it is clear that  thought  this point was taken  in the grounds of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the appeal  before  the apellate authorities. a copy  of the amgazine   wa snever  made avaliable  to the patitioner. The fact that  an extract  of the  relevant portion thereof  was produced before   the  CEGAT   for the    first  time,  does not in   our  opinion   cure   the defect.   so   far as the manufacturer’s   certificate is  cancerned   naither in  the crder4e of the customa  authorities nor  in the order of the CEGAT   is there  a finding that the  price mantioned in the said    certificate  was not  the correct  one  of that  the certificate   was   obtained coilusiveluy  from the  foraign manufacturer.   We may   aled   point  out  that there is no finding   by the customs  auathoriris that  the price  which has  been  adopted by the culstoms authorities wa sreferable to a  car   of the   indential  make, madel,  facilities  or gadgets as  the  one  imported.  For  the aforesaid reasons, the order   of  the    CEGAT  and of the customs  authriries cannot  be supported.      We accordingly, set  aside  the orders of the CEGAT  as well   as the  Customs   authorities in as far  as they  are against   the appellant  and quash  the  show  cause  notice issued  on 17.6.1985 unde rsection 28(1) of the customs Act. 1962. The  appeal is  allowed    but  in  the  circumstances without  costs.