2008 (9) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the clearance of one unit Toyota Land Cruiser Car declared to be of 2003 model with all the particulars. However, the matter was investigated on account of certain discrepancies in the vehicular particulars of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized on the reasonable belief that it is liable for confiscation. Statements were recorded. The Adjudicating Authority re-assessed the value at Rs. 9,81,292/- under Section 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. However, in lieu of confiscation, he gave the importer an option to redeem the car on payment of fine of Rs. 3,40,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/- was also imposed. The benefit of Note 3(i)(a) of Import Licencing Notes to Chapter 87 of I.T.C.(H.S) was also extended to the importer with all atta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....) Further, with regard to the 'no sale' condition, he made the following observations:- "The learned adjudicating authority has imposed 'no sale' condition for two years holding that Transfer of Residence Rule benefits has been given. A prohibition or ban on domestic trading is unconstitutional unless authorized by a specific law. In this case, the concerned law is Transfer of Residence Rules. In this case, benefit of Transfer of Residence Rules is being denied to the car inasmuch as it is being confiscated. Once the benefit of a law is denied, the obligation under the same law cannot be imposed in respect of trading. In any post-importation restriction, the right of trading under the constitution has to be balanced against the post-imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e fine and penalty have to be set aside. 5.1 As regards the import violation also, it was pleaded that in the foreign country, the cars are left hand driven and whereas in India, they are right hand driven. Therefore, for a period of one year, the appellant could not have used the car in the United Arab Emirates. As the law is different in that country and the party could not be compelled to follow or observe something which is impossible. Hence, it was pleaded that the confiscation has to be lifted. 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals), while giving abatement for the extra fittings and refurbishments, has followed this Bench's ruling which is binding on him. Therefore, we do not fin....