TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Cruiser Prado vehicle from an importer, Shri Iqbal Shaik Bapu for certain consideration. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted certain investigations which revealed that at the time of import of the vehicle, there was mis-declaration of the model, age, usage and value of the vehicle with a view to overcome import restrictions and to evade applicable duty. The vehicle was declared to be of 1990 make with a value of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The importer cleared the vehicle in terms of ITC Public Notice No. 3/97-02 under Category A on payment of Rs. 3,20,084/- as duty on the appraised value of Rs. 3,23,391/-. Later the importer registered the vehicle with RTO, Bangalore. At the time of registration, he declared the year of manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trongly challenged the impugned order. Hence he has come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri Laxmi Narayan, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- (i) The appellant is a bona fide purchaser who purchased the impugned car on payment of consideration. The vehicle was cleared by the Customs after assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act. Once the goods are cleared after assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act, without review of the order of the assessment under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the show cause notice issued under Sections 28 and 124 is contrary to various judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Collector of Customs [1993 (67) E.L.T. 260 (Kar.)] 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The DRI investigations revealed that the impugned car was cleared from the Customs by misdeclaration of the model and value. The misdeclaration was resorted to circumvent the licensing condition. In order to import the car without licence restriction, the main condition is that it should have been in possession of the importer for at least one year. It is seen that the importer has wrongly declared the model to be year 1990 while the model is only of year 1997. Hence the car could not have been in the possession of the importer for more than one year. Further, the value declared also was found to be wrong. No doubt, the veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Sumant Sood v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai cited supra by the learned SDR. It is seen that contrary to the submissions made by the appellants, no penalty has been imposed on him. Only a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed. The redemption fine has been arrived at on the basis of the margin of profit. On the basis of the manufacture s price, the CIF value of the car has been arrived at as an amount of Rs. 11,44,586/-. In the order, the amount already paid and deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the appellant have been adjusted only on the differential duty has been demanded. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, we reject the appeal of the appellant and upheld the impugned order. (Pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
