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>Appeal challenges customs duty on Lexus GS300 due to acquisition date discrepancies and undervaluation</h1> 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 ... Confiscation of car - Duty liability - Redemption of confiscated goods Issues:1. Confiscation of imported car and demand of duty2. Liability of subsequent purchaser for customs duty3. Validity of redemption fine imposed4. Interpretation of Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs ActIssue 1: Confiscation of imported car and demand of dutyThe 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 dutyThe 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 imposedThe 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 ActThe 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
