TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commissioner accepts appeal on imported motorcycle despite number discrepancies. Customs failed burden of proof. 'No sale' conditions upheld.</h1> The appeal was accepted as the Commissioner found the motor cycle was legally imported despite discrepancies in chassis and engine numbers. The burden of ... Confiscation and redemption fine - Import - Motorcycle Issues:1. Allegation of illegal import of a motor cycle.2. Discrepancies in chassis and engine numbers.3. Burden of proof on the department for non-notified goods.4. Violation of 'no sale' conditions.5. Applicability of Section 111 violations.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed based on the seizure of a motor cycle from specific information. After investigations and show cause notices, the motor cycle was confiscated but allowed redemption on payment of fines and penalties. The appellant argued that the motor cycle was legally imported, emphasizing the fault in not mentioning the pre-fix to the chassis number during import.2. The customs department alleged discrepancies in the chassis and engine numbers during clearance. However, the Commissioner found that the engine number on the motor cycle matched the one in the bill of entry, indicating a correct import. The absence of the pre-fix 'YMX' before the chassis number was deemed an error by both the importer and the customs department, not affecting the legality of the import.3. Regarding non-notified goods, the burden of proving illegal import was on the department. The Commissioner noted the department's failure to provide substantial evidence to support the allegations. Instruction No. 394/184/92-Cus./AS clarified that the burden lies on the department to prove illegal import for non-notified goods, which was not adequately done in this case.4. The Commissioner confirmed that the 'no sale' conditions were not violated as the motor cycle remained in the importer's name without evidence of sale. Possession for reasons like security does not constitute a sale, and transfer of ownership is only completed upon changing the name in the RC book.5. The appellant argued that the violations of Section 111 were not applicable since the motor cycle was legally imported. As the import was deemed legal, there was no need for further discussion on this issue. The appeal was accepted, and the original order was set aside based on the detailed analysis and findings presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
