TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically, the substitution of new imported cars with old and junk cars from Unaccompanied Baggage containers lying at the docks. In one such case, a container CRXU 1068739, arriving from Dubai per M. V. Express Dhaulagiri-114, under IGM No. 3209/278, dated 7-10-1999 (Item No. 276) was taken up for investigation. The container was said to have one car Toyota Land Cruiser, Chasis No. HDJ-1010-0013354, consigned to one Ganpat Genu Parte, Jaiphal Wadi, Tardeo, Mumbai. The Bill of Lading was issued by M/s. Sunmarine Shipping Services LLC. Investigations revealed that Ganpat Genu Parte was not available at the given address nor at his native place in Satara. On Examination of the said container on 11-8-2000, one Toyoto DX car with Chassis No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or ₹ 38,00,000/- from Shri S.M. Garg, who had purchased it from Mrs. Dhillon for ₹ 28,00,000/-, through Shri S. K. Miglani, who had facilitated the transactions as a professional broker at a fee of ₹ 10,00,000/- i.e. the difference between the purchase and sale price of Shri S.M. Garg. The case was adjudicated, wherein the car, Toyota Land Cruiser was confiscated u/s 111(d) and (I) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed each on Shri S.M. Garg and Shri S.K. Miglani along with other members of the conspiracy, u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri S.M. Garg, the appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the order of penalty. 3. The learned Advocates for the appellants submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, the learned DR submitted that it is no doubt that appellant Mr. Miglani is a broker, who deals in the sale and purchase of imported car and is also known of the market price of the vehicle at the relevant time. As the market price of the vehicle is more than ₹ 40 lakh, which he has been able to procure from Mrs. Dhillon for ₹ 28 lakhs and helped Shri S.M. Garg to purchase the vehicle for ₹ 28 lakhs, the activity of dealing of vehicle at lower rates creates doubts on the act of the appellants that why they have dealt with vehicle at very lower price and sold to M/s. McDowell Co. Ltd., for a higher price, which is equivalent to the market price. In these circumstances, the appellants cannot be said to be bona fide pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht on record to show that the appellant was connived with or abetted the person who were involved or played any role in obtaining bogus No Objection Certificate or registration while transferring the vehicle into his name. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant and penalty was set aside . In the case of Radha Kishan Bhatia (supra) the Hon ble High Court has held that the person who gets the possession after importation, even if with knowledge of their smuggled character, ipso facto cannot be said to be so concerned. In this case, it is clear from the facts that the appellants were not involved in any activity of importation or registration of the vehicle at the first time that is when the vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
