2013 (9) TMI 856 - AT - Customs

Tribunal: Type Approval Certificate Not Mandatory for All Vehicle Models under EPCG Scheme

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the requirement of a type approval certificate for imported vehicles under the EPCG scheme was ... Import of vehicle (BMW) under EPCG licence issued by DGFT – Inasmuch as the appellant did not comply with the requirement of ITC bond, a notice was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the imported vehicle and also proposing to impose penalties and confiscation was confirmed. - Held that:- license issued by DGFT for import of particular model of car by homologus condition under not. no. 34/04 cannot be questioned by custom authorities – confiscation not justified - importer not informed that their vehicle is first vehicle of particular model – homologation certificate cannot be insisted from appellants - Bank Guarantee and Bond shall be released and discharged - Following decision of METRO PALACE HOTEL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORTS), MUMBAI-Il [2006 (1) TMI 126 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], Rahul Bhandare Vs. CC (Import) Mumbai [2013 (2) TMI 316 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ankineedu Manganti [2010 (5) TMI 654 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - stay granted. Issues:1. Requirement of type approval certificate for imported vehicles under the EPCG scheme.2. Confiscation of imported vehicle for non-production of type approval certificate.3. Imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 1: Requirement of type approval certificate for imported vehicles under the EPCG scheme:The appellant imported a vehicle under an EPCG license but failed to produce a type approval certificate as required by the import policy at the time. The appellant argued that subsequent policy amendments exempted the requirement of the certificate for vehicles above a certain value. Citing precedents like Metro Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. case and a Kerala High Court judgment, the appellant contended that the certificate was not necessary for every imported vehicle model. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the certificate's purpose was to ensure vehicle safety for public use during registration, not at the time of importation. Therefore, the appellant's failure to produce the certificate did not warrant confiscation.Issue 2: Confiscation of imported vehicle for non-production of type approval certificate:The Customs authorities proposed to confiscate the imported vehicle due to the appellant's failure to produce the required type approval certificate. The lower appellate authority upheld the confiscation and imposed penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. However, considering the appellant's argument and relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal found that the confiscation based on non-production of the certificate was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal granted unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery pending appeal, acknowledging the appellant's case for relief.Issue 3: Imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962:Penalties were imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to the proposed confiscation of the imported vehicle. The appellant challenged these penalties, arguing that the non-production of the type approval certificate should not lead to such severe consequences, especially considering the policy amendments and legal interpretations favoring their position. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions and relevant legal decisions, granted relief to the appellant by waiving the pre-deposit of dues and staying the recovery during the appeal process, thereby providing temporary respite from the imposed penalties.