2017 (6) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 dated 25.05.2010 for the clearance of a vehicle declared as used Volkswagen Beetle, Model 2004 through M/s. Cargo Care International, the Custom House Agent. The said Bill of Entry described the goods as one unit used Volkswagen Beetle, chassis number WVWZZZIYZ4M 340237, COLOUR White, MODEL 2004 with a declared value of 8500 USD (AV Rs. 3,89,803/-) and invoice issued by M/s. Rama D.B.K. Japan dated 09.03.2010. The vehicle was subjected to Customs examination at the Docks on 25.06.2010 and it was reported that the engine number of the vehicle was not seen and the model details could not be verified. The scrutiny of the documents filed along with Bill of Entry revealed that the importer was working in UAE and came back to India in February ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f all the restriction or the policy provision governing import of used/old car and the importer declared a value lower than the actual value in order to evade payment of substantial amount of Customs duty. The said vehicle is therefore liable for confiscation under sub sections (d) and (m) of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1962 and the importer is liable for penalty. Thereafter the Additional Commissioner adjudicated the matter passed the Order-in-Original dated 08.04.2011 and re-determined the value at Rs. 6,75,446/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Six only) under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007. However, the importer was gi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p the issue of confiscation, it is an admitted fact that Note 1 of Licensing Notes referred above has been infringed by the appellant. The car has, therefore, been held by the original authority to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The cited decision in re Subramanyam Iyyer Ratnam [2002 (150) ELT 504 (Tri.-Bang.)] deals with the impropriety of absolute confiscation which has not been done in the present case. On the contrary, the original authority has allowed redemption for re-export. However, on a perusal of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, I find that adjudicating authorities are not empowered to impose conditions....