TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies 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 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntravention of the conditions specified in the Import Policy of the Government of India, as indicated above, the car was confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Further a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act on the importer. Aggrieved by the order the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. The submission of the Appellant is that all the main conditions for import of such cars specified in Import Policy have been complied with. They classify the following conditions as the important conditions: (a) The car should be Right Hand Drive (right hand steering controls) (b) It should have photometry of the headlamps to suit kept left traffic. (c) The speedometer should read/indicate the speed in Kilometers. (d) The value should be USD 40,000/- FOB or more. (e) The engine capacity should be more than 3000 CC for petrol. (f) It should be shipped from the country of origin of goods (where it has been manufactured). 7. The submission of the appellants is that they received documents from the supplier which showed shipme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , amount to asking the importer to do the impossible. The Tribunal placed reliance on the maxim - lex non cogit ad impossibilia which means that the law cannot ask a person to do the impossible. We agree with these observations and views of the Tribunal. As per the Import Policy the importers were required to obtain the Type Approval Certificate/COP from the international accredited agency of the country of origin of the goods. In this case the cars have been imported from Japan and, therefore, it was only the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport which would have issued the Type Approval Certificate/COP. The respondents had applied to the said Ministry for the Type Approval Certificates/COPs but the Ministry had flatly refused in so many words. In such a situation the respondents could not be expected to submit the Type Approval certificate/COP from the said agency. We are, therefore, no inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal." 11. The Ld AR for Revenue submits that this is a case where the import was made in contravention of the condition that the car should have been imported from the Country of Origin. The argument that the goods were sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in the said rule; (ii) be responsible for all the provisions assigned to the manufacturer as per Rules 122 and 138 of CMVR, 1989 and for issuing Form 22, as per provisions of CMVR, 1989; and (iii) give an undertaking in writing that the proof of compliance to conformity of production as per rule 126A of CMVR shall be submitted within six months of the imports. In case of failure to do so, no further import of new vehicle of that model shall be allowed thereafter. d. the import of new vehicles shall be permitted through the Customs port and Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Chennai, ICD Tughlakabad and Delhi Air Cargo, Mumbai Port. e. The provisions of this notification will not apply to the imports of new vehicles : (i) for the purpose of certification as per para c (i) above. (ii) for the purpose of defence requirements; and (iii) for the purpose of R D by vehicle manufacturers." "(7) Import of new vehicles having an FOB value of US D 40,000 or more and engine capacity of more than 3000cc for petrol run vehicle and more than 2500cc for diesel run vehicles by; (a) individuals, ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e supplied by Dollar Auto Dubai. The goods were shipped from Thailand to India. Appeal No. Cus-110/2008 filed by Jorawar Singh Sehmbi. 18. In this case the Car Imported is "Hummer H2" with a price of US D 55000 (CIF) with assessable value of Rs. 2294215/. Bill of Entry is dated 21-09-2007. The car was supplied by Dollar Auto Dubai and shipped from Thailand. 19. Thus in all the three cases we are of the view that the cars were imported in contravention of the condition that the car should have been imported from the country of manufacture and the cars were rightly confiscated under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. However in view of the fact that the contraventions of the other two conditions are held to be no contravention in similar set of facts by the Delhi High Court we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) in each case. The penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act also is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) in each case. 20. Thus the three appeals are allowed partially. Per: Archana Wadhwa: 21. After having gone through the order proposed by my Id. Brother, I proceed to record a separate finding. 22. The imported cars stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. It is noted that the said condition nowhere uses the expression "directly", i.e., directly imported from the country of manufacture without any transhipment. In my views, it is not permissible to introduce the expression "directly" in the said condition so as to read the same as "be imported directly from the country of manufacture". It is well settled law that while interpreting a legal provision neither any word can be introduced nor deleted and the effect to the language as used, has to be given. Further, wherever two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the assessee has to be adopted. By invoking the above two principles for interpretation of statutes, I am of the considered view that in the absence of use of any expression in the policy language, it cannot be held that import of the vehicle has to be directly from the country of manufacture, It is sufficient if the vehicle stands imported from the country of manufacture and reaches the country via transhipment through other countries, especially when it is not the revenue's case that vehicles were used for considerable time in the countries of UAE and Thailand. In as much as there is no doubt about the vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
