9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under EPCG scheme. 2. Determination of whether the imported cars were new or used. 3. Evidence required to prove the origin of the imported vehicles. 4. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original confiscating imported goods under the EPCG scheme, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposition of a penalty. The appellants imported 3 cars under this scheme, but authorities suspected them to be used cars, which led to the seizure. 2. The authorities found the cars to be used and prohibited under the EPCG scheme. The appellants argued that they requested new cars under the scheme, indicating they should be dispatched from Germany. However, they failed to provide concrete evidence supporting this claim, leading to the confiscation of the vehicles. 3. The appellants contended that the cars were to be dispatched from Germany, but the evidence did not conclusively prove this. The bill of lading showed Port Rashid as the port of lading, but no clear evidence linked the vehicles to the country of manufacture. The lack of proof regarding the origin of the vehicles weakened the appellants' case. 4. The Tribunal acknowledged a possible miscommunication regarding the origin of the vehicles but upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. However, considering the circumstances, the redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs and penalty were deemed excessive. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs, and the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh, providing partial relief to the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the redemption fine and penalty while upholding the confiscation of the imported goods due to insufficient evidence supporting the claim of new vehicles dispatched from Germany under the EPCG scheme.
|
