TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3600 cc with a value of Rs. 11,42,310/-. Entertaining a view that the said importation is in violation of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act, for short) and also Policy made thereunder, the officers conducted certain enquiries and thereafter proceedings were initiated against the appellant through show-cause notice dt. 24/03/2016. The show-cause notice proposed rejection and thereafter redetermination of value for the imported car; confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 for various violations of import policy as mentioned under Chapter 87; imposition of penalty on the appellant for various violations. The case was adjudicated. The original authority vide his order dt. 24/04/2017 held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y as well as the appellant authority discussed and decided issues which were not proposed with evidence in the show-cause notice. On this ground alone, the orders are not sustainable. b. Regarding absolute confiscation of the imported car (with permission only to re-export), the learned counsel submitted that the imported car is not a prohibited item. The provisions of Section 125 are not applied properly by the lower authorities. Reliance was placed on various decided case laws as well as the consistent practice by the Customs authorities in respect of similar imports in the same port. 4.1. The learned AR supported the finding of the lower authorities. He submitted that first of all the imported vehicle was not in the possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a show-cause notice, the original authority is bound to decide on the correct valuation. It is not sustainable for him to delegate such work to further proper officer. The original adjudicating authority was in fact acting as proper officer for reassessment and there is no other proper officer for such work. In any case, we find that redetermination of value was not proposed with reference to specific value and legal provision and with supporting evidence in the show-cause notice. Similarly reclassification, with reasons, was not proposed in the show-cause notice. Incidentally it is noted that para 20(iv) of the original order rejected the classification under CTH 8703 and ordered reclassification under CTH 8702. We note that in fact, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atia [2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC)] and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Malabar Diamond Gallery P. Ltd. [2016(341) ELT 65 (Mad.)] and also the Tribunal decision dealing with non-compliance of conditional import and also prohibited goods. We note that as per the Policy, mentioned under FTDR Act, cars falling under CTH 8702 (as well as 8703) are freely importable. It is not the case that their importation requires a prior authorisation / licence. As such, we are dealing with a freely importable car. No doubt certain conditions as per the Policy note are violated. Such condition will necessarily render the goods liable for confiscation. There is no doubt up to this level. However, the lower authorities in the present case ordered confiscat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ist Vs. CC [2015(319) ELT 153] 8. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grand Prime Ltd. [2003(155) 417 (SC)] held that Customs Act does not contain any provision regarding reexport of goods. In the present case, the lower authorities allowed reexport of goods only, though no such prayer has been made by the importer. We find that the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Tribunal in Subramanyam Iyyer Vs. CC [2002(150) ELT 504 (Tri. Bang.)], as well as the decision of Commissioner(Appeals) while disposing of such imports through Cochin Customs vide order dt. 28/08/2009 in similar set of facts are appropriate and applicable to the present case. The Hon le Kerala High Court in their order dt. 28/05/20....