Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 672 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Toyota Landcruiser - misdeclaration of goods by concealing evidence - Confiscation of goods - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the conditions specified in public notice no. 3 (RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 31st March-2000 of Director General of Foreign Trade that endorsement of ‘no sale’ for two years was to be recorded by the competent authority in the registration certificate of the vehicle. The appellant, having entered into lease agreement with the importer, cannot be said to be ignorant of such condition. Nonetheless, we are unable to concur with the findings of the lower authorities that ‘no sale’ restriction has been breached by taking possession of the vehicle on lease. The distinction between ‘sale’ and ‘lease’ is not only substantive but also legally unassailable - the appellant cannot be held liable as a willful participant in breaching conditions of import. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant does not sustain. Demand of differential duty - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the differential duty confirmed by the lower authorities under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be fastened on the appellant as a substitute for the importer. Confiscation for misdeclaration of value - alleged breach of condition of ‘no sale’ - HELD THAT:- Though the relative gravity of each has not been mathematically determined, the lack of challenge to the former in the present proceedings precludes erasure of confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and, thereby, retains fine, even in the lack of segregation, for redemption. In this peculiar circumstance of challenge restricted to one of the grounds of confiscation coupled with the absence of appeal by the person affected by the other, it would be inappropriate for us to contemplate alteration of the fine. In view of our findings supra, the appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant with the clarification that the appellant may not be subjected to recovery proceedings for differential duty, redemption fine or penalty that devolves on the importer.
|