Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 758 - CESTAT NEW DELHIImport of high end luxury cars from various foreign suppliers by mis-declaring as new - Undervaluation of goods - Imposition of penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - Demand of differential duty - Held that:- Appellant is a subsequent purchase of the car after importation in India and bona fide purchaser of the car. Further, we find that Appellant No.2 has contended the valuation of the car and submitted that the car is not an old car is not acceptable as the impugned order has not been challenged by Shri Sumit Walia and Shri Tarun Kumar, therefore, the said part of the order has attained finality. In these circumstances, we are not agreeing with the contentions of the ld. counsel of the Appellant No.2 that the car is new one and the value of the car is declared correctly. - car cannot be confiscated as appellant is a bona fide purchaser. We hold that the car has been confiscated for under-valuation and mis-declaration and the said part of the order has not been challenged by the importer. In these circumstances, the impugned car is liable for confiscation. We also find that the redemption fine imposed is highly excessive. Therefore, we reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 5 lakhs. On payment of such redemption fine, the car shall be released to Appellant No.2. Further we find that the appellant is the bona fide purchaser of the car and no statement of the appellant has been recorded and no role of the appellant has been discussed. Therefore, we hold that penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA were not imposable on the appellant. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to take the possession of the car on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 5 lakhs. Penalty on the appellant has been dropped but the penalty on Shri G.S. Prince was imposed. Further we find that in the case of CC Vs. Vaz Forwarding Ltd.(2010 (12) TMI 503 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT), wherein the penalty was dropped on the CHA in absence of evidence of the knowledge of the CHA. Further, in the case of S.Y Ranade (supra), it was held that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the CHA and an employee has suo moto acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of his duty, therefore the employer, i.e., CHA cannot be penalised. - Appeal disposed of.
|