TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 10,15,358/- levying differential duty of Rs. 8,86,846/- demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest thereon under Section 28AB thereof from the date of clearance of the car till the date of recovery of the differential duty from Shri Gagandeep Singh Anand. (ii) Confiscation of the vehicle i.e. Toyota Land Cruiser Prado imported under Bill of Entry No. 290147 dated 2.9.2002 valued at Rs. 10,15,358/- in the name of Shri Kirti Kumar Dholakiya under Section 111(d), 111(m) & 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 granting option for redemption thereof on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on Shri H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s declared, however the date of manufacture of the vehicle was found as 26.04.2001. Thus at the time of import, the importer had mis-declared the model year of the vehicle as 1997 to claim higher depreciation. (D) Shri H.S. Oberoi, Proprietor of M/s H.S. Oberoi & Co. has purchased the vehicle. The vehicle was imported by mis-declaring the age and value. The vehicle so purchased by him was imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The vehicles imported under the said Rules cannot be sold I transferred for a period of two years from the date of registration. Shri H.S. Oberoi have purchased the vehicle before the expiry of the stipulated time period. Further as revealed by the sale invoice no. 0233 dated 15.08.2002 issued by MIs World....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amination of the vehicle and document revealed that the same was of 2002 model and was registered under Registration No. HR-26 R 5040, being discovered from the residential premises of Shri Gagandeep Singh Anand situated at 7, Forest Lane, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Investigation noticed that Shri Gagandeep Singh Anand was partner of one M/s D.U. Parts International, New Delhi. Loan arrangement was made by him from Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., for import of the vehicle. However the vehicle was registered in the name of Shri Manvir Singh Oberoi in the RTO, Gurgaon and original Registration made in Japan was cancelled vide Certificate No. 01264 dated 12.3.2002. That came to the notice of the investigation. The year of first registration in India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer of the vehicle varied. The vehicle although actually was manufactured on 27.4.2001 the importer falsely declared the vehicle to be of 1997 model. Such false declaration was proved by investigation. Deliberate mis-declaration of description and value of the vehicle called for levy of duty, seizure, confiscation and penalty. 5. Investigation recorded statements from various persons, who were connected with the import. 6. Appellant s submission is that there can neither be seizure nor confiscation since the car has already been released. Neither the first buyer nor the subsequent buyers were involved in the import alleged to be made in violation of law. It is further submission of the appellant that if at all there is any vio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the make of 2002, that itself made the vehicle to be seized and confiscated. Fraudulent declaration was deliberately made to claim depreciation @ 60% as against 22% permissible. Therefore, the vehicle was liable to be confiscated and seized irrespective of the fact that the same was possessed by subsequent buyer. Mr. Dholakia, who was importer, deliberately remained quite without answering to the summons of the department nor also filed any reply to show-cause. He provided bogus address for which the communication of the investigation could not reach to him. When the real manufacturer in Japan provided the details, these two appellants could not rebut that. The car was imported under scheme called Transfer of Residence (TR) Rules, 2002 . ....