Customs duty liability cannot be fastened on a later vehicle purchaser who is neither importer nor registered owner.

A subsequent purchaser of an imported motor vehicle cannot be treated as the importer or owner for customs duty purposes where he had no role in the importation and the vehicle was not imported for his benefit. The Supreme Court held that the inclusive definition of "importer" applies only in the period between importation and clearance for home consumption, so liability could not be fastened on a later purchaser. It also ruled that confiscation and redemption liability could not attach because the vehicle remained registered in the original importer's name, the true owner was known, and mere possession by the appellant was insufficient. The proceedings against the appellant were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subsequent purchaser of an imported motor vehicle can be treated as an importer or owner for the purpose of fastening customs duty liability under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether, in the facts of the case, the appellant could be made liable under the confiscation and redemption provisions when the vehicle stood registered in the name of the original importer and the owner was known.

Issue (i): Whether a subsequent purchaser of an imported motor vehicle can be treated as an importer or owner for the purpose of fastening customs duty liability under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The inclusive definition of "importer" covers an owner, beneficial owner or a person holding himself out to be the importer only in the period between importation and clearance for home consumption. The appellant was neither the importer nor a participant in the importation process. The vehicle was not imported for his benefit or on his behalf. He was only a later purchaser from a person who had himself purchased the vehicle from the importer. In these circumstances, the appellant could not be treated as the importer or as a person liable to pay the import duty under the customs provisions.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be fastened with customs duty liability as an importer or owner under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the appellant could be made liable under the confiscation and redemption provisions when the vehicle stood registered in the name of the original importer and the owner was known.

Analysis: The option under the confiscation provision to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is available to the owner of the goods or, where the owner is not known, to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. For a motor vehicle, ownership in law is determined by registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The vehicle remained registered in the name of the original importer, and the appellant's name was not entered in the registration certificate. The owner was therefore known, and mere possession of the vehicle by the appellant did not attract liability under the confiscation provision.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable under the confiscation and redemption provisions, and the proceedings initiated against him were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment and the proceedings against the appellant were set aside, the earlier appellate order was restored, and the Department was left free to proceed against the importer and lawful owner.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs duty and confiscation liability cannot be fastened on a subsequent purchaser who is neither the importer nor the registered owner, especially where the true owner is known and the statutory conditions for proceeding against a possessor are not satisfied.

---