Post-import no-sale condition requires importer's ownership or title; confiscation and penalty restored after tribunal error.

A post-importation no-sale condition in a vehicle import public notice was held to require the importer to be the owner or title holder, because the right to sell after the lock-in period presupposes valid title. On the facts, the importer was found not to satisfy that requirement. The Tribunal's view that ownership was unnecessary was treated as perverse and contrary to the public notice, and its direction to set aside confiscation and penalty and release the vehicle was found unsustainable. The confiscation and penalty orders were restored in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the post-importation condition of no sale for two years under the public notice required the importer to be the owner or title holder of the vehicle. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside confiscation and penalty and directing release of the vehicle.

Issue (i): Whether the post-importation condition of no sale for two years under the public notice required the importer to be the owner or title holder of the vehicle.

Analysis: The condition prohibiting sale for two years was held to necessarily imply that the importer must have title to the vehicle, because a right to sell after expiry of the lock-in period presupposes ownership and transfer of title. A person without title cannot validly sell or transfer the vehicle, and the benefit of the public notice was therefore available only to a person who had imported the vehicle as owner and continued to hold such title during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The condition required ownership or title in the importer, and the respondent did not satisfy that requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside confiscation and penalty and directing release of the vehicle.

Analysis: The Tribunal's view that ownership or title was unnecessary was held to be perverse and contrary to the public notice. The record, including the importer's statement and the cancellation of the vehicle's registration in Japan, supported the finding that he was not the owner. The direction to release the vehicle after collection of duty was also inconsistent with the public notice, which required full duty as a precondition to import.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the confiscation and penalty, and its order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the original confiscation and penalty orders were restored in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-importation no-sale condition in a public notice governing import of a vehicle necessarily requires the importer to be the owner or title holder, since a lawful power to sell after the lock-in period can arise only from ownership.

---