AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prabha Sridevan, J.—The first respondent imported a Hummer Vehicle and filed a Bill of Entry dated 30-6-2006 with a declared value of US$ 55,000. It is admitted that the car was manufactured in USA. The department referring to para 2(II)(a)(iv) of Import Licensing Note to Chapter 87 of EXIM Policy confiscated the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was not imported from the country of manufacture but from Thailand and therefore it is in violation of above referred to para of the EXIM policy. On appeal, the Tribunal set it aside and therefore the department is before us [2009 233 E.L.T. 526 (Tri.-Chennai)]. Learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the CESTAT has simply accepted the contention that the goods have been shipped from M/s. General Motors USA and that is not correct since the Bill of lading does not show US as the port of loading, but the port of loading is shown as Laem Chabang, Thailand. Therefore, the goods have not been invoiced by the original manufacturers. Learned counsel also submitted that the contention that the goods have bean shipped from the manufacturer directly from United States of America is false. It was further submitted that if it had been directly imported from United States of America, the vehicle would have been a left handed vehicle whereas the vehicle is a right handed vehicle and this shows that the goods were not shipped nor emanate from United States of America.
Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the bill of entry clearly shows that the transhipment cargo originated from Hallifax USA EX Vessel "COOL HONG KONG" via Laem Chabang (Bangkok). The Tribunal had set aside the Commissioner''s finding on the basis of the bill of entry, which shows that the subject vehicle had been transhipped by General Motors, Detroit to Chennai and copies of those documents are enclosed in the typed set of papers. We find that the bill of lading shows the consignor as General Motors, Detroit and the consignee as the respondent and the transhipment had originated from Halifax USA Ex Vessel via Laem Chabang. The Bill of entry also shows United States of America as the country of origin. It is on the basis of these materials that the Tribunal came to its conclusion. It is purely a question of fact and we are unable to interfere with the same. Accordingly the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.