Transfer of Residence sale restriction cannot stand without statutory basis after denial of concessional import treatment.

A sale restriction on an imported car linked to the Transfer of Residence scheme could not be sustained where Transfer of Residence benefit had been denied and the vehicle was released only on payment of duty, redemption fine and penalty. The stated legal point is that such a prohibition may operate only where it is part of the concessional TR framework or supported by an independent statutory provision. In the absence of that basis, no separate two-year bar on sale was shown to be legally enforceable, and the cancellation of the restriction was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prohibition against sale of the imported car for two years could be sustained when Transfer of Residence benefit had been denied and the vehicles were released on payment of duty, redemption fine, and penalty.

Analysis: The restriction imposed by the adjudicating authority was found to be linked to the Transfer of Residence scheme, under which concessional treatment and the accompanying sale restriction could apply. In the present case, the importers were denied TR benefit, the vehicles were confiscated under Section 114D of the Customs Act, and release was obtained only on payment of redemption fine and penalty. In that situation, no statutory basis was shown for imposing an independent prohibition on sale for two years.

Conclusion: The sale restriction was not sustainable and was rightly cancelled.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the cancellation of the two-year bar on sale of the imported cars stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale restriction attached to a Transfer of Residence import cannot be imposed where TR benefit has been denied and no independent statutory provision authorises such a prohibition.

---