2010 (9) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 under Garnet de passages issued by Canadian Automobile Association with validity up to 24-11-2009 . The said car was allowed temporary clearance with a condition that the vehicle should be re-exported by 29-5-2009 and extension was granted till 29-11-2009 for re-export of the car on an application made by the appellant. The appellant again vide letter dated 8-11-2009 requested for permanent retention of the vehicle in India on various grounds and also requested to waive the condition of re-export and undertook to pay the customs duty along with fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 402/2009, dated 15-12-2009 allowed the retention, ordered for confiscation of the car but gave an option....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has himself not insisted at the time of import nor has arrived at a finding that the appellant had violated provisions of Exim Policy would in itself mean that the appellant had committed only a technical violation which does not warrant imposition of high quantum of redemption fine and penalty. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions. (1)     CC (Prev) v. Gians Enterprise [2009 (236) E.L.T. 630 (P&H)] (2)     H.S. Chopra v. CC, ACC, New Delhi [2002 (149) E.L.T. 1140 (Tri.-Del.)], (3)     Pradip Reshamwala v. CC (Imports), Mumbai-II [2008 (221) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.-Mum.)]. It is his submis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been imported is not under restricted category at all. He would draw our attention to the import policy and submit that all passenger cars falling under Chapter Heading No. 8703 are "free imports" and it is his submission that both the lower authorities have not held that the car imported by the appellant falls under the restricted category and hence submissions made by learned DR would not be of any consequence as revenue has not filed any appeal against the said orders. It is his submission that the provisions of Import Licensing Notes and more specifically 2(1) has been considered by the Bench in the case of Abbas Kuramputhoor v. CCE, Cochin (supra). 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chargeable also exceeds the said amount. Whereas the redemption fine imposed is only to the extent of Rs. 18,15,500/- which is much lesser than the chargeable amount of R.F. in any circumstances. The penalty imposed is also on the lower side considering the offence in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence there is no force and merits in the arguments put forth by the appellant for reducing the R.F. and penalty imposed. Accordingly I hold that there is no need to interfere with order of the lower authority......" It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that both the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority have held that the car which has been imported by the assessee is used or second-hand vehicle. It....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a used car or second-hand car. We find that the contentions raised by learned SDR on the Import Licensing Notes and more specifically 2(1) of the said notes were considered in the case of Abbas Kuramputhoor v. CC Cochin (supra). We may reproduce the relevant ratio : "7.1 As regards the quantum of fine and penalty, the learned counsel stated that for violation of the EXIM Policy with regard to the import in a non-designated port, a very heavy penalty is not warranted and they relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of D' Souza Lawrence v. CC (A), Cochin - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein for such violations the fine and penalty were imposed to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- lakh and Rs. 50,000/- only. 8. On....