Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHIConfiscation u/s 111(d) – Penalty u/s 112 – Appellant import a motor car manufactured in USA – Invoiced by a dealer in Dubai – Shipped from Thailand - Contravention of Import policy – Vehicle should have been imported from the country of manufacture - This condition not complied with – Held that:- We are not in agreement with the contention that proving the path of the goods imported is sufficient to meet the condition that the goods should have been imported from the country of manufacture. The Import Policy is formulated having regard to various trade considerations of the country and international obligations. It is not for Tribunal to look into the merits and demerits of the import policy because the Tribunal does not have before it all the facts and constraints that result in a policy. We are also not able to agree with the contention that since the policy has been amended in December 2008, the amended position should be applicable for imports made in 2007. This argument if accepted will also lead to considerable difficulties to the Government in the matter of implementation of import policies from time to time which changes depending on various factors. Conditions not complied are - Homologation certificate - Type Approval certificate/Certificate of Conformity of Production (COP) – Held that:- There is some merit in the argument of the AR that there was one way of complying with the policy by not importing the car of USA make at all. Following the decision in case J. S. GUJRAL and ANR (2008 (10) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT) to be a case of maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia which means that the law cannot ask a person to do the impossible. There is no reason to confiscate the car on this ground. There is no malafide established on the part of all the three appellants. The issue involved is bonafide issue of interpretation of legal provisions and the appellants could be under a bonafide belief that as the cars are being imported from the country of manufacture, there would be no violation of provisions of the policy. As such, that imposition of penalties upon the importers are neither warranted nor justified. The same are accordingly set aside. In view of the foregoing, impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed. Difference in opinion Whether confiscation of the vehicles is required to be upheld with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on the payment of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs in each case as held by Member (Technical) or the confiscation is to be set aside in Toto as held by Member (Judicial) Whether confiscation of the vehicles is required to be upheld with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on the payment of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs in each case as held by Member (Technical) or the confiscation is to be set aside in Toto as held by Member (Judicial)
|