Court upholds importer's possession of car, reverses confiscation order. Ownership not key in customs clearance.

The court upheld the order setting aside the confiscation of the imported car and the penalty imposed on the importer. The decision was based on the finding that the car was in the possession of the importer, despite being registered under a company where the importer held a position. The court emphasized that ownership was not a determining factor for clearance without a license, leading to the conclusion that there was no contravention of the relevant customs and trade regulations. The appeal was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the importer.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order setting aside confiscation of imported car under Transfer of Residence Rules and penalty imposed on importer.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of a used Hyundai Terracan Motor Car imported by the respondent under Transfer of Residence Rules. The Revenue contended that the car was not in the possession of the individual importer as it was registered in the name of a company where the importer served as the Chairman and Managing Director. The order was challenged under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

During the proceedings, it was noted that the company where the respondent held a position had confirmed that the car was indeed in the possession of the respondent for 4 years, a fact that was not disputed. The adjudicating authority acknowledged that there was a technical violation of the Foreign Trade Policy due to the vehicle not being registered in the name of the individual importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a precedent set by the Tribunal in a previous case, emphasizing that ownership is not a determining factor for the clearance of a car without a license. As a result, it was concluded that there was no contravention of Section 111(d) against the importer, leading to the upholding of the order setting aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the importer.

In the final pronouncement, the operative part of the order was made public on 4-12-2009, confirming the decision to reject the appeal and uphold the order setting aside the confiscation of the imported car and the penalty imposed on the importer.

---