TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty, by misdeclaration of year of manufacture, are taken up together for hearing and disposal. Facts of each of the appeals is slightly different; hence, narrated separately as below:- 2. Appeal No.C/20909/2014 (M/s. Chettinad Structurals & Engineering Limited) On the basis of intelligence that used foreign motor cars are imported into India under Transfer of Residents Rules, by misdeclaraing the year of manufacture and sold within a period of two years thereby violating the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, investigation was initiated by DRI against the imported "Toyota Lexus LX 470" car bearing registration No. TN-09-AD-5445 under the ownership/possession of the appellant M/s. Chettinad Structurals and Engineering Limited. The car was imported by one Shri Shoukhat Ali Pazhaya Pattilath through Cochin Port against Bill of Entry No.12247 dated 28.01.2003 and applicable customs duty was paid on 09.06.2003. Later, the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred by making necessary endorsement in the RC book to M/s. South India Structural Corporation Limited (now known as Chettinad Structurals & Engineering Limited). The year of manufacture of car was shown as 12/2002 in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king them jointly and severally liable for payment of differential duty and confiscation of the seized vehicle along with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, differential duty of Rs.7,86,845/- was confirmed against Shri Basheer Movval and Shri K.V. Ramana Shetty and the amount deposited only by Shri K.V. Ramana Shetty has been adjusted against the liability; seized vehicle was directed to be confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; it was allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.1.00 lakh. Penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs was imposed on Shri Basheer Movval under Sections 112(a) / 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of Rs.7,86,845/- was also imposed on Shri K.V. Ramana Shetty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest. 4. Appeal No. C/22269/2014 (Shri Kevin Chinoy) & appeal No.C/22270/2014 (Shri Karl Panday) One super bike Suzuki GSX-R 1000 bearing registration No. MP-44-MA-4112 was imported by one Shri Vinod Damodaran Thayyil against Bill of Entry No.167768 dated 19.10.2005 and duty of Rs.1,65,514/- was paid on 20.10.2005 against the declared value of Rs.1,19,999/-. The motorcycle was declared as 1999 model; however,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that the year of manufacture was misdeclared as 1999, a show-cause notice was issued on 06.08.2010 to Shri Neeraj Mansukhlal Karnavat and Shri Jaspal Singh alias Bittu from whose possession the vehicle was seized demanding differential duty of Rs.6,04,169/- with proposal for confiscation and imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand of differential duty was confirmed against Shri Neeraj Mansukhlal Karnavat and Shri Jugjeev Singh Sarna and Shri Jaspal Singh alias Bittu, jointly and severally; motorcycle directed to be confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.1.5 lakhs and also penalty of Rs.75,000/- on Shri Jugjeev Singh Sarna under Section 112(b); penalty of Rs.6,04,169/- on Shri Neeraj Mansukhlal Karnavat were imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the original authority, the appellants have preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeals. 7. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellants except for the appellant Shri K.V. Ramana Shetty has submitted that in all these cases, after import of the motorbikes / cars, the respective importer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear of manufacturer has been misdeclared and concessional rate of duty was paid availing Transfer of Residence benefit. The show-cause notices thereafter were issued making parties, both importers as well as owners of the vehicles from whose possession the vehicles were seized making the importers as well as the owners of the vehicles jointly and severally liable for recovery of differential duty and for misdeclaration of the year of manufacture. The crux of the issue whether the Department can proceed against the purchasers of the vehicles who were not the importers and purchased the vehicles under normal course of business from the importers. The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nalin Choksey (supra). Their Lordships after analysing the definition of 'importer' held as follows:- 11. We have considered Section 28(1) of the Customs Act in order to ascertain whether the appellant herein is the importer of the car in question. On a reading of the definition of the expression 'importer' under clause (26) of Section 2 of the Customs Act. The definition reads as under: "Section 2 - Definitions.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods." 14. It is undisputed that there is a confiscation of the car in question in this case and the import of the said car is not prohibited. Also, as per the aforesaid definition, the owner of the goods, or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, shall be given the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation and where such fine is imposed on the owner or the other person, they shall be also liable to pay any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. However, firstly, the appellant is not the owner of the car coming within the definition of importer under the customs Act as discussed above. Secondly, in order that the appellant is to be construed to be the owner of the vehicle in question, it is necess....