Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 256 - CESTAT CHENNAIBroker arranging mortgage - whether transaction was actual sale or was only a mortgage? - Held that: - All the evidences, which have not been retracted or disproved by the appellant, only serve to establish the intricate web of transactions woven to facilitate the sale and purchase of vehicle even though the same continued to be registered in the name of the importer. Evidently, all these has been done to get around the condition of no sale of the imported vehicle for a period of two years after import. However, the agreement dated 1.11.2003 entered into between Shri Saleem Mohammed and Shri Namit Malhotra together with the fact that Namit Malhotra as a co-applicant along with Shri Saleem Mohammed for applying a loan in the ICICI Bank establishes that the vehicle has been sold to Namit Malhotra as well as the fact that the vehicle has been delivered to Namit Malhotra thereby completing the sale. The appellant used the mortgage to camouflage the transaction of sale. Penalty u/s 112 (a) of Customs Act - Held that: - Shri Haren Choksey had actively aided and abetted the importer in the effort to dispose of the vehicle to Namit Malhotra within two years of its importation into India in violation of the provisions of EXIM Policy, had arranged for the sale/purchase of the said vehicle and has made himself liable for penal action and therefore ordering penalty under section 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - However, the penalty of ₹ 8 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority is on the higher side - penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- would be more commensurate with the acts and omissions of the appellant Shri Haren Choksey. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|