Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the condition of no sale for two years in the public notice governing import of cars by persons returning to India for permanent settlement requires the importer to be the owner or title holder of the vehicle, and whether violation of that condition justified confiscation and penalty.
Analysis: The condition permitting import without licence on payment of full customs duty was read as carrying an implied requirement that the importer must have title to the vehicle, because the right to sell after two years presupposes ownership and transfer of title. The vehicle imported in the name of a person who was not shown to be the owner could not satisfy the policy condition. The Tribunal's view that ownership was unnecessary was held to be contrary to the public notice and perverse, and its direction for release on payment of duty was found unsustainable since full duty was already a condition precedent for the benefit of the notice.
Conclusion: The importer was required to be the owner or title holder of the vehicle and the Tribunal erred in setting aside confiscation and penalty. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where import of a vehicle is permitted under a policy subject to a no-sale condition for a fixed period, the importer must have title to the vehicle so that the obligation not to sell during that period is capable of performance and enforcement.