TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative calculation showing excess payment. Department directed to provisionally release car subject to bond of full value and bank guarantee. Petitioner not to create any third party right till finality of adjudication proceedings. - 1464 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. Shri V. Sridharan i/b PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. Shri P.S. Jetly, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 6th November, 2009 seizing the vehicle imported by him and the provisional order of release passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in United Kingdom prior to its export. According to the Petitioner, registration of the said car in U.K. was only to comply with the requirement of the local laws so as to facilitate its export. However, the said explanation, prima facie, did not find favour with the Customs Authorities. In the submission of the Petitioner, he has actually paid excess customs duty including penalty and interest to the tune of Rs. 36,92,121/- and the said amount is still lying with the Director of Revenue (Intelligence). The Petitioner also gave the detailed calculations about payment of customs duty, penalty and interest, which read as under :- I Rate of basic customs duty on imported car at tariff rate under Heading 87.03. 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 121/- made by the Petitioner to the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, on 6-11-2009 the Respondent No. 4 along with certain officers acting under the instructions of the Respondent No. 3 visited the residential premises of the Petitioner at Bangalore and without serving any prior notice on the Petitioner, seized the said imported car. Consequent to the seizure, the seized car was handed over to the Petitioner under the Supurdnama dated 6-11-2009 for safe custody. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs passed the order dated 23-2-2010 directing provisional release of the imported car on the conditions viz. (1) payment of differential duty of Rs. 15,02,239/- plus interest, (2) execution of bond for the full value and (3) ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph of the said judgment reads thus :- "On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the benefit of Customs Notification for import of new car cannot be denied simply on the basis of its prior registration before shipment to India. The Board's Circular has also clarified the point. It is also seen from the impugned order that the car was registered in October, 2007 and the shipment was made in January, 2008. Further, from the Examination Report, it is seen that the car has run only for 16 km. From this, it is very clear that the registration is only a formality. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, we cannot come to the conclusion that the car is a used one. Hence, there is clear case here for extending the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le" at the time of filing of Bill of Entry for importation. Accordingly, the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as amended, which provides concessional rate of duty to "New vehicle, not registered prior to importation" would not be available to the petitioner. Hence the judgment of the CESTAT quoted by the petitioner is not relevant to the instant case." 11. On the basis of the above submissions, Mr. Jetly urged that the adjudication proceedings are still pending. In the circumstances, provisional order dated 23-2-2010 is legal, proper and reasonable and that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present Writ Petition especially in the writ jurisdiction. 12. Having heard both the sides at length, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest of justice since the conditions put therein are somewhat harsh. 15. Hence the following order :- (a) The Respondents are directed to provisionally release the Ferrari F 430 car imported vide Bill of Entry No. 698519 dated 6th February, 2008 subject to the Petitioner executing the bond for full value and furnishing the Bank guarantee of any nationalised Bank for Rs. 15 Lacs. The Petitioner shall not create any third party right, title or interest in the said imported car hereinafter till the adjudication proceedings achieve finality. (b) Subject to compliance of the above conditions, the Respondents shall handover all original documents pertaining to the subject car within two weeks thereafter. (c) The prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
