TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequential penalty under Section 112(a) were sustainable for non-production of the Homologation Certificate and alleged non-compliance with the import condition.
Analysis: The import condition under the relevant Import Trade Control Public Notice required compliance with the certification requirement under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and the Board had also contemplated provisional assessment where the certificate was not available at clearance. The certificate was subsequently procured, and the record did not show that provisional assessment had been made. The liability to produce the certificate and satisfy the related vehicle-compliance requirements was treated as resting on the dealer rather than the importer, and there was no finding of violation attributable to the appellant. Since similar clearance had been granted in another case and the import was found eligible, confiscation could not be sustained. Once confiscation failed, the penalty had no independent basis.
Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the importer.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed certification requirement for import of a vehicle is later satisfied and the importer is not shown to be responsible for the alleged non-compliance, confiscation under the Customs Act and the accompanying penalty cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
