TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2002 issued by the Department to the Petitioner demanding custom duty amounting to Rs. 5,35,118. 2. While directing to issue Rule D.B on 8th August 2003, the Court stayed the operation of the aforementioned demand notice. 3. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that under CARNET-DE-Passage permit Scheme (Carnet Scheme), 34 cars were imported in India and cleared without payment of custom duty subject to the condition that they are re-exported within six months. It appears that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seized 13 of the 34 cars on the ground that they failed to comply with the said condition of re-export within six months. One of the cars of make Mercedes Benz forms the subject matter of the present petition. 4. One....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal documents concerning the customs clearance of the car, it was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (CA). Later the car was released to the Petitioner upon his furnishing a BG and personal bond. 8. A show cause notice (SCN) dated 10th December 1993 was issued to several persons, including the Petitioner, who had dealt with the car. They were asked to show cause why the said car should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the CA and the penalty under Section 112 of the CA should not be imposed. The SCN noted the fact that the car had been released in the first instance upon FIAA furnishing the BG for the entire customs duty. The SCN further noted that Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi and Mr. Suresh Jain did not joi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakhs only) each under Section 112 (a) and (b) of Customs Act 1962." 11. Aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT. Simultaneously the Customs Department also filed an appeal, which fact was not known to the Petitioner. For some reason, the Petitioner's appeal was taken up by the CEGAT first and not together with appeal filed by the Department. By the impugned order dated 27th November 1997, the CEGAT disposed of the appeal filed by the Petitioner upholding the fine amount. The CEGAT also noted in its order, as under: "At this stage, learned counsel has stated that the amount of Rs. 50,000 imposed as fine has already been paid by the Appellant. Therefore, he prays that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that with the order-in-original of the Commissioner returning a finding that the Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser, the question of fastening the liability of the customs duty against the Petitioner was unjustified, particularly since FIAA had already furnished a BG for the entire customs duty. Further all the previous transferees were known to the Department. However, the recovery of the entire customs duty was sought to be made only from the Petitioner. 16. Ms. Sonia Sharma, learned Senior standing counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, referred to Section 125 (2) of the CA which enables the recovery of duty from the person from whom the illegally imported goods is recovered. Ms. Sharma accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was not the first transferee. There were at least three earlier transferees of the car by way of sale between 1985 and 1991. The factual finding of the Commissioner that the Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser has not been questioned by the Department. In other words he Petitioner bought the car without the knowledge of it being illegally imported on account of the failure to re-export it within six months from the date of its import. Thirdly, the impugned order of the CEGAT was passed ex parte, i.e., without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 19. Although it was suggested by Ms. Sonia Sharma that the matter could be sent back to the CESTAT for affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, considering the ....