2004 (1) TMI 472 - AT - Customs

Tribunal orders release of imported car, sets timeline for duty payment

MS SHOES EAST LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

MS SHOES EAST LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 113 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved:Whether a motor car imported by M/s. M.S. Shoes East Limited is liable for confiscation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of the imported motor carThe appeal revolves around the confiscation of a second-hand Rolls Royce Corniche IV car imported by M/s. M.S. Shoes East Limited. The Customs Department initially held the car to be over 3 years old, leading to delays and subsequent condonement by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The Commissioner of Customs later confiscated the car, citing violations of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and categorizing the car as prohibited goods. However, the Appellant's advocate argued that there was no violation of Section 7 of the Act as the Importer-Exporter code number was duly mentioned, and the car was imported under a Special Import licence. The advocate also emphasized the eligibility for depreciation of the car's value for customs duty purposes, citing relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal noted the correspondence between the Appellants, D.G.F.T., and Customs Departments, highlighting that the delay condonation and issuance of release advice indicated compliance with import regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation, remanding the matter for duty payment and release of the car, while directing the adjudicating authority to expedite the assessment within a specified timeline.Issue 2: Compliance with import regulationsThe Respondent argued that the original import licence and release advice were not received by the Customs Department, pointing out discrepancies in the photocopies provided. However, the Tribunal observed that the correspondence and endorsements from D.G.F.T. and Customs Departments indicated proper documentation and condonement of delays. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification by the Customs Department and licensing authorities in case of doubts or missing documents. It was noted that the Revenue did not contest the condonation of the delay by D.G.F.T., further supporting the conclusion that the car was not liable for confiscation. The Appellants were granted the opportunity to raise the issue of depreciation before the assessing authority, ensuring procedural fairness in the resolution of the case.