Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 272 - HC - CustomsDemanding differential custom duty on account of correct valuation of the car - confiscation of Car - import of second hand car - importer of the car not traceable - Transfer of Residence Rules - liability of importer vs liability of subsequent owner - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that since then the said car is in possession of the DRI as the option to redeem has not been exercised. The importer of the said car is Mr. Dholakia who had filed the bill of entry and cleared the said car on payment of customs duty as assessed by the Officers of the customs - The demand of duty could only be made upon the importer of the goods and not upon the person in whose possession / ownership the confiscated goods were found when the owner/ possessor of the confiscated goods does not seek to redeem the offending goods u/s 125 of the Act - decided in favor of the appellant and against the respondent Revenue. Penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962 - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Department that the appellant had done any act or omission which has rendered the goods confiscated u/s 111 of the Act. There is no finding in the impugned order or even allegation in the showcause notice to the above effect. Similarly, the basis of the Revenue's contention that the appellant had abetted the illegal import of the said car by having financed the same is contrary to the facts on record - the appellant could not have in any manner abetted improper importation of the said car by financing it. Consequently, there is no basis to impose a penalty u/s 112(a) of the Act upon the appellant. Appeal allowed in toto - All issues decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent Revenue.
|