Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 813 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported vehicle - misdeclaration - it was alleged that The car is a converted vehicle originally designed for transport of less than 8 persons but apparently converted to carry more than 13 persons - violations of Policy with reference to Motor Vehicles Regulations in India - confiscation - Held that: - when the proceedings for reassessment were initiated by a show-cause notice, the original authority is bound to decide on the correct valuation. It is not sustainable for him to delegate such work to further proper officer. The original adjudicating authority was in fact acting as proper officer for reassessment and there is no other proper officer for such work. In any case, redetermination of value was not proposed with reference to specific value and legal provision and with supporting evidence in the show-cause notice. Similarly reclassification, with reasons, was not proposed in the show-cause notice. Incidentally it is noted that para 20(iv) of the original order rejected the classification under CTH 8703 and ordered reclassification under CTH 8702. We note that in fact, the appellant in their Bill of Entry classified their product under CTH 8702 only. It would appear that the said finding of the original authority is, perhaps, an error. In any case, when there was no proposal with reasons in the notice, reclassification without such proposal is not sustainable. We also note that the appellant contended on the correctness of the classification. We are not going into the details as that will be beyond the scope of the proceedings. Absolute Confiscation of imported car - section 125 of CA - Held that: - this imported car cannot be considered as a prohibited item. No evidence to such assertion has been provided by the lower authorities. Violations of certain conditions with reference to freely importable items cannot make the items as a prohibited item. Even in such a situation of holding the item as prohibited item, still Section 125 provides for option for redemption. In the present case, the lower authorities allowed reexport of goods only, though no such prayer has been made by the importer. We find that the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Tribunal in Subramanyam Iyyer Vs. CC [2002 (7) TMI 621 - CEGAT, BANGALORE], in similar set of facts are appropriate and applicable to the present case. Considering the prayer of redemption, we find that the same can be redeemed for clearance on payment of fine of ₹ 20,000/- as fixed by the original authority. Regarding fixation of redemption fine, we note that the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the goods were in detention from March 2017 onwards increasing demurrage and cost. Factoring that, we hold that the said redemption fine is sufficient - penalty on importer upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
|