Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 316 - AT - CustomsExemption under Notification No. 21/02 at Sr. No. 344(2) – Whether car is a new one or an old car - Show cause notice was issued on the charges that the appellant has mis-declared the car as new - Car liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appellant liable to penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Commissioner ordered that since the car is used one, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay differential duty of Rs. 11,43,304/-, a redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1972. Held that:- As per Board’s Circular No. 1/2005-Cus., dated 11-1-2005, the Board has clarified that a new imported vehicle for the purpose of this chapter shall mean a vehicle that has not been registered for use in any country according to the laws of that country, whereas as per the referred Customs Notification, it should not be registered anywhere prior to importation. It was also noted that in many countries, registration of the vehicle is an essential requirement for moving the vehicle from the showroom or the factory to the airport. To verify whether the registration is a technical formality or not, the field formations may compare the date of dispatch of the car with the date of registration – In this case, the car has been registered with the UK authorities on 20-5-2005 and was exported to India within 9-6-2005 i.e. almost within 19 days of its registration and the registration certificate clearly explicit that the vehicle is for direct export and cannot be used on UK roads prior to export. This clearly indicates that the vehicle is registered only for export purposes. Therefore, in terms of Board’s Circular No. 1/2005, dated 11-1-2005, the vehicle is a new one. Further name and address of the manufacturer of complete vehicle is M/s.“Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing Europe SA/NV”, Bruxelles (Brussels). If the name of manufacturer is correct then allegation of forged TAC is not sustainable as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parminder Kaur Parminder Kaur v. State of UP[2009 (10) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT ], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that not every interpolation or tampering with a document amounts to a forgery. For there to be forgery, it is imperative that the document has been altered for some benefit or gain to a person and in the absence of such a benefit, there is no forgery – In this case TAC certificate gives the name and address of the manufacturer correctly, therefore, the TAC produced by the appellant is correct and cannot be disputed and denied - Allegations in the show-cause notice are not sustainable. Further Page 1 of the TAC column 5 provided the name and address of the manufacturer and the same has been shown as manufactured at Brussels, which is admittedly not a forged document and page 2 of the TAC only shows the name and address of the assembly plant and as per DGFT Policy Circular No. 5/2004-2009, dated 15-10-2004, the TAC may be provided from a signatory country to the 1958 Agreement under WP 29. It can be seen from the list of the signatory to W.P. agreement, that UK is one of the signatory – The same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Vikram Tannan[2008 (3) TMI 205 - CESTAT MUMBAI], wherein it was held that TAC may be provided from any signatory country to the 1958 Agreement and Revenue’s insistence that TAC should be obtained from country of origin is not correct - Impugned order set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief - Registry was directed to return the DDs, which were taken into the custody by this Tribunal at the time of final hearing, to the appellant – In favour of assessee.
|