TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT OF INDIA) . Therefore, we hold that the confiscation of car is not sustainable, the confiscation of the car is set aside. - Further the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the car and have no role in importation of car, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Consequently, penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Customs Appeal No. 52184 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellants : Shri M K Gupta, Consultant Shri Sunil Kumar, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing the Redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said day, the statement of the appellant was recorded who stated that she did not know about the said car and car belongs to her husband Shri Jagat Mohan Aggarwal and all the details about the cars will be with her husband only. Thereafter a notice for appearance was given to Shri Jagat Mohan Aggarwal for his appearance on 20.5.13, but before that a show cause notice dated 13.5.13 was issued for confiscation of the car in question and for proposing imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and the impugned order is passed holding the car liable for confiscation and redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed on the appellant and penalty of ₹ 10 lakh under section 112 A a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri Sumit Walia in the name of Shri Krishan Kant and the impugned order has been passed. 4. He submits that reconfiscation of car by the impugned order is against the settled position that once the goods are confiscated and allowed to be redeemed by the Customs authorities, then the department cannot initiate another proceedings to reconfiscate the goods as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. M cement Ltd. 12000 (115) ELT 3 (SC)], Therefore, the impugned order qua confiscation of the car and imposition of penalty on the appellant is to be set aside. He further submits that the car is not liable for confiscation under section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act. He further submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue came before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under; in para 5 and 6: 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is seen that under Section III of the Act, the goods which were brought in contravention of Clauses (a) to (p) of that Section are liable for confiscation. 5. Relevant sections for the purpose of our consideration are Sections III(d) and III(m) of the Act which read thus : 111, Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation - x x x x x (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleased on payment of redemption fine, in such an event it matters little whether the adjudication was under which sub-clause of Section 111 because whichever is the sub-clause, there was an obligation on the adjudicating authority to find out the market value of the goods so imported and to collect all duty and other charges payable on the goods in question before releasing the goods on payment of redemption fine. Having released the goods thus into the market and permitting the sale of the same, in our opinion it is not open to the Collector to initiate another proceedings under another clause of Section 111 to recover the so-called differences in valuation of the imported goods from the ultimate bona fide purchaser for value. If the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
