M.A. JACKSON versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 08-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
M.A. JACKSON 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 
JULY 8, 1997 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, SUHAS C. SEN AND 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962-Section 20( 1)-Short levy of custom duty-Transfer 
A 
B 
of residence from Dubai to India-Car brought from Dubai to India-Deter-
C 
mination of its price-Price mentioned in Auto Car Magazine not mentioned 
in show cause notice-Reliance on that price by Customs authority-Whether 
legal-Held, No. 
Appellant returned to India from Dubai on transfer of residence and 
brought along with her one used car. The Customs authorities assessed D 
the value of the car at Rs. 53,305.44 and assessed duty at Rs. 1,28,136. The 
appellant paid the duty under protest and obtained clearance of the vehicle 
on the same date. A show cause notice was issued u/s. 20(1) of the Customs 
Act, 1962 asking the appellant to show cause against alleged short levy of 
customs duty which was worked out on the basis that the assessable value 
of the car was Rs. 1,21,000 rather than Rs. 53,305.44 The appellant filed a E 
reply. However, after 2 years and 3 months, the appellant received an order 
" from the Assistant Collector of Customs, stating that a comparison was 
made with a 'price list' and accordingly, the assessable value was reworked 
at Rs. 96,850 as against the proposed assessable value of Rs. 1,21,603 
mentioned in the show cause notice and that the additional duty payable F 
was Rs. 89,715.91 and not Rs. 1,41,163.75 proposed in the notice. Appellant 
filed an appeal alleging that appellant was not shown the World Car 
Catalogue or Auto Car Magazine and that there was no reason not to 
accept the Invoice price submitted by the appellant .. This appeal was 
dismissed. This appeal had been filed u/s 745(L) of the Customs Act. The G 
appellant alleged that there were no grounds for raising the assessable 
value and that no reasons were given by the authorities as to why the 
manufacturer's certificate was not accepted and that the price stated in 
the Auto Car Magazine was not even referred to in the show cause notice 
and only an extract of the prices mentioned therein was given to CEGAT 
for the first time. 
H 
565 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Once it was admitted that the price mentioned in the 
Auto Car Magazine was not mentioned in the show cause notice issued to 
the petitioner, any reliance on the said price mentioned in the magazine 
by the Customs authorities must be held to be illegal. Though this point 
B was taken in the grounds of appeal before the appellate authorities, a copy 
of the magazine was never made available to the appellant. The fact that 
an extract of the relevant portion thereof was produced before CEGAT for 
the first time, did not cure the defect. So far as the manufacturer's 
certificate was concerned, neither in the orders of the Customs authorities 
C nor in the order of CEGAT was there a finding that the price mentioned 
in the aid certificate was not the correct one or that the certificate was 
obtained collusively from the foreign manufacturer. There was no finding 
by the Customs authorities that the price which had been adopted by the 
Customs authorities was referable to a car of the identical make, model, 
facilities of gadgets as the one imported. The order of CEGAT and of the 
D Customs authorities cannot be supported. [568-H; 569-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2885 of 
1989. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.88 of the Customs Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. C/130/88-A 
in Order No. 560/88-A. 
Rajiv Dutta for the Appellant. 
F 
N.K. Bajpai and Narasimhan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This appeal has been preferred by the 
appellant against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control 
G Appellate Tribunal (Special Bench A), New Delhi (hereinafter 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 : 
H 
The appellant returned to India in 1984 from Dubai on transfer of 
M.A. JACKSON v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [M. JAGANNADHA RAO,. J.) 567 
residence availing benefits of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978. While A 
coming back from Dubai, she brought along with her, one used Volvo Car 
244 GLE Model 1982 which was under her use in Dubai. This car had been 
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.