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>Tribunal allows redemption of mis-declared vehicle, sets fine and customs duty, importer penalty upheld.</h1> The Tribunal found that absolute confiscation of a vehicle imported with mis-declared value and from a different country was not justified. Citing ... Import of prohibited goods - Used Vehicle RHD, Hummer H3, Petrol, 3700CC - vehicle was not imported from the country of manufacture i.e. South Africa but it was imported from Dubai, UAE - absolute confiscation - penalty - Held that:- The import of car is not prohibited. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority ordering for absolute confiscation has not given justified findings for absolute confiscation - It is found from several Tribunal’s decisions and Hon’ble High Court’s decisions where the goods are not prohibited, absolute confiscation is not warranted. The Adjudicating authority in the present case ordering for absolute confiscation is not justified - the order of absolute confiscation is modified to confiscation with an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of appropriate redemption fine and customs duty and uphold the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Matter remanded to the adjudicating Authority only of the purpose of determining the redemption fine under Section 125 - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Mis-declaration of value, Policy violation, Absolute confiscation, Personal penalty, Import from Dubai instead of South Africa, Justification for confiscation, Redemption fine, Customs duty, Applicability of previous decisionsMis-declaration of value and Policy violation:The appellant imported a used vehicle, Hummer H-3, and declared its value as 8000 US$. The Adjudicating Authority re-determined the assessable value as &8377; 6,98,031 under Rule 9 of the CVR”2007. The vehicle was confiscated for mis-declaration of value and policy violation regarding the import of old and used vehicles. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a personal penalty of &8377; 3,50,000 on the importer. The appellant challenged these decisions before the Tribunal, arguing that the vehicle's import was not prohibited, and there was no justification for absolute confiscation.Import from Dubai instead of South Africa:It was revealed during the proceedings that the vehicle was imported from Dubai, UAE, instead of the declared country of origin, South Africa. The appellant's counsel contended that as an NRI, the appellant should be allowed to clear the vehicle on payment of a nominal redemption fine and penalty, as per the practice followed in Customs Houses for NRI importers. The Revenue, however, argued that the circumstances warranted confiscation of the goods.Justification for confiscation and Redemption fine:The Tribunal examined the case in light of Circular No. 25/15, which requires the declared value to be examined concerning the Engineering Certificate, which was not available in this case. The Revenue claimed that the imported vehicle was old and used, possibly re-conditioned, and the declared value did not correspond to the actual value. The Tribunal found that absolute confiscation was not justified when the goods were not prohibited for import. Citing previous decisions, including the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai, and the High Court of Calcutta, the Tribunal held that confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and customs duty was appropriate.Applicability of previous decisions:The Tribunal referred to various decisions, such as the case of Subramanyam Lyyer Ratnam v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, and Sarguroh Azam Gulzar Khan v. CC (Seaport-Import), Chennai, where absolute confiscation was deemed unjustified for similar import cases. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal modified the order of absolute confiscation to allow redemption of the vehicle upon payment of a redemption fine and customs duty. The penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for determining the redemption fine under Section 125.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the order of absolute confiscation was not justified and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass the necessary order within one month. The appeal was disposed of with the modification of the confiscation order and the direction for redemption of the vehicle on payment of appropriate fines and duties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
