Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1258 - AT - CustomsImport of vehicle - Violation of condition for import of Hybrid car as provided under para 7 of Import Licensing Notes to Chapter 87 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import conditions stated at serial No.2(2c) - confiscation - Held that - the appellant is not the importer of the goods. They have not done the clearance from the Customs. Therefore, if at all any violation was done, it is by the importer and not by the appellant. The appellant is a bona fide buyer of the car from an independent dealer of the car. They have also paid the appropriate value of the car. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to any violation occurred at the time of clearance of the goods, they have been unduly benefitted. However, since there is a violation of the FTP and since the goods were available, it has been confiscated - the redemption fine reduced from ₹ 6.25 lakhs to ₹ 4,00,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Violation of Foreign Trade Policy and imposition of redemption fine on the appellant. Analysis: The case involved M/s. Precision Car India Pvt. Ltd. importing a Hybrid Porshe car, which was later sold to an authorized dealer and then purchased by the appellant. The Customs authority seized the car due to a violation of the condition for import of Hybrid cars under the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant, not being the importer, argued that they should not be held liable for the violation. The department issued a show cause notice leading to the confiscation of the car with a redemption fine and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but waived the penalty, leading to the appellant filing an appeal. The appellant's counsel contended that the appellant, as a bona fide buyer, should not be penalized for the importer's violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument and proposed a settlement for a reduced redemption fine. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that since there was a violation, confiscation of the goods and imposition of the redemption fine were justified. They relied on previous judgments to support their stance. After considering both sides' submissions, the tribunal noted that the appellant was not the importer and had no role in the clearance of the goods. While upholding the confiscation of the goods due to the violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, the tribunal acknowledged the appellant's bona fide intentions and reduced the redemption fine from &8377; 6.25 lakhs to &8377; 4 lakhs. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant should not be unduly penalized for a violation they were not party to, and hence, partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order to reflect the reduced redemption fine.
|