ORDER
G.A. Brahmadeva, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate submitted that the appellants, M/s. Technicom-Chemie (India) Ltd. have imported one second hand Mercedes 300SEL Car of Model 1993 on 8.10.1996. The Commissioner was of the view that the imported Car was without import licence and he has enhanced the value based upon the Parker’s Car Price of March, 1996. Shri Kaushik, ld. Advocate attacked the impugned order on the two grounds. First of all the Commissioner was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the import licence was required with reference to the car in question. He has submitted that as per the Public Notice No. 202 of 92-97 if the car is imported by a company which had invested more than 40% shares, the licence is not required as per Clause E of the Public Notice 202 of 92-97 dated 30.3.1994. He drew our attention to the relevant Clause E, which reads as under:
E. Companies incorporated in India having foreign equity participation of more than 25 %
(a) The Indian company may import upto three vehicles.
(b) The payment for the vehicle as well as the payment of the customs duty in foreign exchange are made by the foreign company holding equity in the Indian Company.
(c) In the case the Indian Company wants to dispose of the vehicle, it will be subject to the condition of re-export of the vehicle or sale to the State Trading Corporation of India or to an eligible importer covered by any one of the categories C, D, E and F mentioned in this Public Notice.
(d) Subsequent import of a vehicle may be made after the disposal of the previous vehicle in accordance with the condition mentioned in (c) above, provided there is minimum period of five years between two successive imports of a vehicle.
3. He submitted that in spite of the plea and Public Notice placed before the Commissioner, neither has been discussed nor has given any reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that the import licence was required for importation of Car. He concluded that the appellants have imported the car from United States and the Car was manufactured in Germany. In absence of manufacturer’s price list, the assessable value of the car has been arrived at on the basis of the Parker’s Car Price Guide March, 1996, which gives the value of the car in question in the year 1993 as UK pound 46400.00. In this connection, he drew our attention to the views taken by the Tribunal in this regard in the case of Vipul Gupta v. Collector of Customs reported in 1997 (18) RLT 550 in support of his contention. Further, referring to the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee subsequent to the filing of the appeal, he submitted that the manufacturer has given a certificate clarifying the position that the car in question has left the factory on 1.3.1993 and the basic list price for Mercedes-Benz Car Type 300 SEL on that date was DM 88,950.00.
4. Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR appearing for the Revenue objecting to this submitted that neither the importers has placed any Certificate on record nor considered by the authorities below. He justified the action of the Commissioner in determining the value based on the Parker’s Car Price Guide in the absence of manufacturer’s price list. As regards, the licence, he said that as per the subsequent amendment, the assessee company was required to invest more than 20 lakhs in the foreign company and accordingly, the Public Notice referred to by the assessee is not applicable. Furthermore, he drew our attention to the Clause E of the Public Notice, wherein it was clarified that the companies incorporated in India having foreign equity participation and the investment made in Indian Rupees is not covered by the said Public Notice. In reply, Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate submitted that the subsequent amendment referred to by the ld. JDR is not applicable to this case because importation was prior to the subsequent amendment. He also contended that the Commissioner has not given any reasoning on the Public Notice No. 202 (PN)/1992-97. In these circumstances, he requested that the matter will have to go back for re-consideration.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The certificate issued by the manufacturer dated 19.3.1997 was not before the adjudicating authority. Obviously, he has not given any finding with reference to the Certificate placed before us.
6. In view of this, we are of the view that the matter will have to go back for re-consideration to the adjudicating authority. He is directed to re-examine the issue with reference to the Certificate and also Import Policy with reference to the relevant Public Notice and pass an appropriate order accordingly after providing an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court on 7.4.1999.