Vehicle under temporary privilege not considered import; petitioner directed to pay customs duty per policies. Utilize appellate mechanism for Customs Act disputes.

The court determined that bringing a vehicle under temporary privilege does not constitute import. The petitioner was directed to pay customs duty as per government policies and Circulars. The court advised the petitioner to utilize the appellate mechanism under the Customs Act before pursuing further legal action. The writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of following the proper appellate process for resolving customs duty disputes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether bringing a vehicle under a temporary privilege can be considered as an import.
2. Eligibility of the petitioner to pay customs duty and avail depreciation benefits for the imported vehicle.
3. Whether the petitioner should have availed the appellate mechanism under the Customs Act before filing the writ petition.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Import:
The petitioner imported a vehicle under a temporary privilege, seeking a direction to calculate customs duty as per Circular Ext.P5. The respondents argued that bringing the vehicle under the privilege does not constitute import, as it was temporary and the vehicle was surrendered after the period. The Standing Counsel contended that a used vehicle older than three years cannot be imported unless customs duty is paid as per government policies and Circulars.

Issue 2: Customs Duty and Depreciation Benefits:
The petitioner claimed that the demanded customs duty of &8377;36,28,397 was excessive as the vehicle was not new and should be subject to depreciation benefits per Circular Ext.P5. The respondents maintained that even if the vehicle was not older than three years, customs duty should be paid according to import policies and Circulars, rejecting the petitioner's plea.

Issue 3: Appellate Remedy under Customs Act:
The judgment highlighted that the issues raised were mixed questions of law and facts, suggesting the availability of an appellate mechanism under the Customs Act for such matters. The petitioner was directed to appeal against the customs duty demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) within two weeks, with a petition to condone any delay. It was emphasized that coercive actions should not be taken until the appeal is decided.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available under the Customs Act for a final decision on the customs duty issue.

---