Customs duty and penalty liability cannot be fastened on a subsequent purchaser absent importer responsibility or false declarations.

Customs duty short-levy liability rests on the actual importer, not a subsequent purchaser who acquired the vehicle after clearance, so the differential duty demand was unsustainable. Confiscation and redemption fine also failed because the appellant was not shown to be responsible for the import misdeclaration or to have filed the clearance documents. Penalties under section 114A were inapplicable because he was not the person liable for the duty, and section 114AA did not apply because he had not knowingly made or used false import declarations. The duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were all set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of differential customs duty could be sustained against the appellant, who was a subsequent purchaser and not the importer of the vehicle; (ii) whether confiscation of the vehicle and the consequential redemption fine could be sustained against the appellant; (iii) whether penalties under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of differential customs duty could be sustained against the appellant, who was a subsequent purchaser and not the importer of the vehicle.

Analysis: The vehicle had been imported and cleared in the name of the original importer under a transfer of residence arrangement. The appellant purchased the vehicle after import clearance. The legal liability to pay customs duty on short levy lies with the importer, and a subsequent purchaser cannot be treated as the importer merely because he later paid the duty or used the vehicle. The authorities and the record did not establish that the appellant was the person who filed the bill of entry or obtained clearance of the vehicle.

Conclusion: The demand of differential customs duty against the appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the vehicle and the consequential redemption fine could be sustained against the appellant.

Analysis: Confiscation followed by an option of redemption under section 125 operates in relation to the person legally answerable for the import or to the person entitled to redeem the goods. On the facts, the appellant was only a post-import purchaser and not the importer. In the absence of evidence showing that he was responsible for the import misdeclaration, confiscation from him could not be sustained, and the redemption fine tied to such confiscation also could not survive.

Conclusion: The confiscation order and the redemption fine imposed on the appellant were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on the appellant.

Analysis: Penalty under section 114A is attracted only against the person liable to pay duty when non-payment or short payment results from wilful misstatement or suppression. As the appellant was not the person liable for the duty demand, section 114A was inapplicable. Penalty under section 114AA requires knowingly or intentionally making, signing, or using false or incorrect declarations or documents in the transaction of business under the Act. The appellant had not filed the import documents or made the declarations for clearance of the vehicle, so the ingredients of section 114AA were also absent.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under sections 114A and 114AA were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant, being only a subsequent purchaser and not the importer, was not liable for the customs duty demand, confiscation consequences, or penal consequences arising from the import dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs duty liability for short levy lies against the actual importer, and confiscation-linked obligations and penalties cannot be fastened on a subsequent purchaser unless the statutory ingredients specifically attracting such liability are established.

---