TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Entry No. 2456457 dated 14.07.2017, 2732842 dated 04.08.2017, 2732939 dated 04.08.2017 and 2456119 dated 14.07.2017 for clearance of the said imported vehicles/goods. 1.1 The goods were examined 100% on 1st check basis to check compliance of import licencing note of chapter 87 and to check eligibility of import. As per examination report the goods were found to be New Mercedes Benz V220D Chassis No. Engine No. as per Invoice. 1.2 From the scrutiny of documents submitted by importer, catalogue and COP of Mercedes Benz, the manufacturer, it is noticed that the vehicles are Diesel Driven having Engine Capacity of 2143 CC. The importer had claimed Import policy exemption under Para 7 of Import Licencing Note to Chapter 87. As per Para 7 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....But vide letter dated 30.08.2017, importer/appellant denied the availability of the requisite certificate even with the ex parte. Hence vide Order-in-Original No. 99/2017 dated 17.10.2017 four of the imported cars valued at Rs.1,41,56,704.64 were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as redemption fine. Penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a)(i) of the Act. Proof of compliance to conformity of production as required under Rule 126A of Central Motor Vehicle Rules was directed to be submitted within 6 months of the imports. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax 167 (Tri.-Del) (ii) Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai reported as 2007 (211) ELT 548 (Tri.-Del) (iii) Modern Trading & Logistics LLP Vs. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) reported as (2023) 5 Centax 21 (Tri.-Bom) (iv) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ankineedu Manganti reported as 2012 (275) ELT 551 (Ker.) With these submissions the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the findings in Para 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the impugned order in appeal. No infirmity is impressed. While relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DEPE Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of production as per rule 126A of CMVR shall be submitted within six months of the imports. In case of failure to do so, no further import of new vehicle of that model shall be allowed thereafter." 5.2 Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ankineedu Manganti (supra) held that: "...................In our view type approval certificate is mainly required to ensure that the vehicle is safe and road worthy for public use and it is to be considered by the registering authority while registering the vehicle and not by the Customs authority when it is imported. Besides this, the assumption of the department that the importer has imported the vehicle which is unfit for use on road is also absurd.........." 5.3 However, it is also clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and thus a Certificate is redundant and superfluous. The relevant portion is reproduced as follows: "7................................................Furthermore, it is on record that the vehicle has already been registered with the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy including licensing norms relevant to chapter 87 in ITC (HS) classification are intended to ensure that the import of any goods, post-clearance, would not be in breach of the essential requirements of law subject to which motor vehicles may be registered for operation on roads. The policy condition is not one incorporated merely for the sake of regulating imports and exports of the country but to ensure that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit for use on road is also absurd. In fact, in a similar case, the Delhi High Court has upheld the view of the Tribunal because the importer cannot be expected to get what is not possible to obtain. We therefore do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the department. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.' 8. Accordingly, we hold that the inclusion of this condition as necessary for provisional release is redundant and superfluous and we allow this appeal by expunging the said condition as requirement of provisional release." 5.5 I also observe that it has been acknowledged in the Order-in- Original itself that there is no mis-declaration neither of description nor of classification nor even of quantity and value except the violat....