General power of attorney does not by itself amount to prohibited transfer of an imported car under customs exemption conditions.

Execution of a general power of attorney, by itself, did not amount to sale or prohibited parting with an imported car under Notification No. 258/90-Cus. The appellate authority treated the document as insufficient to establish a violation of the notification condition restricting transfer during the stipulated period, and the Revenue failed to prove any contravention on that basis alone. The consequence was that confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act were not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether execution of a general power of attorney amounted to parting with or sale of the imported car so as to violate the conditions of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. and justify confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The imported car had been cleared subject to fulfilment of the notification conditions, including the restriction against parting with or selling the car within the stipulated period. The adjudicating authority treated execution of an irreversible general power of attorney as a violation, but the appellate authority found that such execution, by itself, did not amount to a sale. On the facts, the Revenue did not establish a contravention of the notification condition merely on account of the power of attorney.

Conclusion: Execution of a general power of attorney did not amount to sale or prohibited parting with the car, and the conditions of the notification were not violated.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere execution of a general power of attorney does not, without more, amount to sale or prohibited transfer in violation of an exemption notification condition.

---