Appeal challenges customs duty on Lexus GS300 due to acquisition date discrepancies and undervaluation

The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order confiscating a Toyota Lexus GS300 car and demanding duty amounting to Rs. 6,08,808 due to discrepancies in acquisition date and undervaluation. The subsequent purchaser was held liable for customs duty, challenging the interpretation of Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, emphasizing duty payment upon redemption by the owner of confiscated goods, whether the importer or subsequent purchaser, leading to a referral to a Larger Bench for clarification on duty liability.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported car and demand of duty
2. Liability of subsequent purchaser for customs duty
3. Validity of redemption fine imposed
4. Interpretation of Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act

Issue 1: Confiscation of imported car and demand of duty
The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order confiscating a Toyata Lexus GS300 car and demanding duty amounting to Rs. 6,08,808. The car was imported by Mrs. Priyadarshini Chitteaputhran, but subsequent investigations revealed discrepancies in the acquisition date and undervaluation. A show cause notice was issued to both Mrs. Priyadarshini and the subsequent purchaser, resulting in the impugned Order by the Commissioner.

Issue 2: Liability of subsequent purchaser for customs duty
The appellant argued that under Section 28 of the Customs Act, duty is the liability of the importer and not a subsequent purchaser. It was contended that the subsequent purchaser should not be held liable for any defects in clearance by Customs Authorities. The appellant believed the purchase was valid and relied on a case precedent to support the argument for differential duty recovery from the importer.

Issue 3: Validity of redemption fine imposed
The appellant challenged the excessive redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs, arguing for a nominal fine based on market price. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs, finding the initial amount excessive compared to market standards.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act
The disagreement arose on whether the appellant, as a subsequent purchaser, is liable to pay duty on redemption of the car. The Tribunal disagreed with a previous case precedent and held that duty is related to goods, not just the importer. The Tribunal cited Section 125, stating that the owner of the confiscated goods is liable to pay duty upon redemption, regardless of being the importer or not. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the discrepancy on the liability of the owner or the person from whom goods were seized to pay duty on redeemed goods.

---