Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 838 - AT - CustomsImport of Car - demand of duty from the second purchaser - Additional Commissioner held the car liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Public Notice of DGPT for violation of post import condition of no sale. - demand of duty from the purchaser of car - This is a case where an imported car has been confiscated twice. The second confiscation arose because DRI found that the year of manufacture of the car was rnis-declared. - Held that:- duty cannot be demanded from the owner because the details of import are established and the importer is known and duty was correctly demanded from the importer in the Show Cause Notice. Whether with the passing of first adjudication order by the Asstt. Commissioner, the principle of res-judicata will apply and prevent the second adjudication of the case. The first purchaser was not even issued a show cause notice. The appellant who is the second purchaser, bought the car from the first purchaser i.e. M/s. HFCL after a year or so, was not at all aware of the mischief played by the importer. His bonafides are confirmed by the Commissioner, who did not impose any penalty on him. But the Commissioner found an easy way out by saddling the second purchaser with duty and imposing a penalty on the importer to try and safeguard Revenue. However he has ignored the fact that legal provisions must be followed strictly. Order of the Commissioner is not sustainable in law. - Order of confiscation is set aside. Duty demand, redemption fine and penalty on appellant are also set aside. - Decided in favor of appellants.
|