TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Lawrence DSA through his friend Shri Krishna Chaitanya for Rs.3,00,000/-. The vehicle was originally registered with Road Transportation Authority (RTA), Raigad, Maharashtra and the appellant got the vehicle transferred in his name and then registered in the RTA, Hyderabad. 2. On 06.05.2010, DRI seized the bike from the appellant but later on provisionally released it to the appellant on depositing Rs,10,00,000/- in cash and an equal amount in bond. After completing investigation, the officers of DRI issued a Show Cause Notice dt.12.08.2010 SCN stating that it appeared that: a) The appellant was in possession of the imported bike, which has been brought into India without following statutory provisions and conditions laid down under the Customs law. b) The imported bike was brought into India by Shri Sunil Lawrence (as per Bill of Entry submitted by the appellant), whose whereabouts are not known to appellant. c) The copy of Bill of Entry No. 401001 dt.13.06.2006 given by the appellant was found fake on verification by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata and the original Bill of Entry of this number pertained to import of diet coke. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are smuggled lies on the department, which onus has not been discharged. c) The bike has become part of landmass and cannot be treated as smuggled. If the bike is said to be of smuggled nature, the appellant purchased it only after the motor bike was registered in India. Thereafter, the bike was registered in the appellant's name for the second time. Accordingly, it has become part of landmass of the country and no documentary evidence of legal import is required and the same cannot be held to be smuggled goods unless contrary is proved by producing positive and tangible evidence by the department. d) The provisions under which bike was confiscated do not apply. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act deals with prohibited goods and import of motor bikes is not prohibited even according to the denovo Order-in- Original. Confiscation of the vehicles without referring to relevant provisions or referring wrong provisions is illegal and is liable to be set aside. e) The value adopted by the DRI as Rs.9,36,144/- is without any basis because the appellant had purchased the bike for only Rs.3,00,000/-. No market enquiry was conducted, which should have been done to im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, invoice and packing list, etc. His friend have him copies of the documents along with which he got the bike registered in his name at RTA, Hyderabad. He also submitted copy of Bill of Entry No. 401001 dt.02.06.2008 as proof of import. The bike was purchased from Shri Sunil Lawrence, Maharashtra through his friend Shri Krishna Chaitanya. c) Summons were issued to Shri Sunil Lawrence at the given address and they were returned with remarks "incomplete address". The copy of the purported Bill of Entry was sent by the DRI to the Customs authorities, Kolkata and it was found to be fake. The bike was provisionally released on execution of bond for Rs.10,00,000/- and bank guarantee for Rs.10,00,000/-. d) The purpose of law is not to allow an offender to sneak out of the meshes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Kumawat Vs UOI and Others [2003 (8) TMI 221 - SC]. e) The appellant submitted false answers and documents which provides circumstantial evidence. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan [2000 (5) SCC 7]. f) Shri Sunil Lawrence was not traceable at the address and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not been made a noticee at all. It is his submission that when Shri Sunil Lawrence was the original importer, who is supposed to have imported it illegally into India, he should have been made a noticee in this case and not just the appellant. Learned authorized representative submits that Shri Sunil Lawrence was not traceable at the address given by the appellant. The identity of Shri Sunil Lawrence was also not known to the appellant and the person through whom the bike was purchased from Shri Sunil Lawrence is no more. So, there was no way to find who Shri Sunil Lawrence was and where he lived and if he had smuggled the bike into India. 12. I find that, insofar as this case is concerned, the proposal is only to deprive the appellant of his property and therefore, SCN was issued. The proposal was also issued to impose penalty on the appellant. The mere fact that some action has not been taken against any other person, such as Shri Sunil Lawrence, does not negate the validity of this SCN or the consequential orders. 13. Coming to the question of confiscation, the proposal in the SCN and the confiscation in the Order-in-Original (denovo) as upheld by the impugned order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) the maintenance of public order and standards of decency or morality; (c) the prevention of smuggling; (d) the prevention of shortage of goods of any description; (e) the conservation of foreign exchange and the safeguarding of balance of payments; (f) the prevention of injury to the economy of the country by the uncontrolled import or export of gold or silver; (g) the prevention of surplus of any agricultural product or the product of fisheries; (h) the maintenance of standards for the classification, grading or marketing of goods in international trade; (i) the establishment of any industry; (j) the prevention of serious injury to domestic production of goods of any description; (k) the protection of human, animal or plant life or health; (l) the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value; (m) the conservation of exhaustible natural resources; (n) the protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights; (o) the prevention of deceptive practices; (p) the carrying on of foreign trade in any goods by the State, or by ....