TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri P.A. Augustian, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER PER: P.K. CHOUDHARY The appe filed this appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against the OIA C.Cus. No. 1567/2014 dated 26.08.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported one -Nissan NV350 Caravan Diesel Automatic Transmission car vide Bill of Entry No. 5223972 dated 17.04.2014. The declared price of the car was 41000 USD and the B/E shows the year of manufacture-2012 and the country of origin -Japan. On importer s request to adjudicate the case without SCN and personal hearing, the case was adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Ld. Counsel Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the customs authority can insist for homologous certificate and TAC as contemplated under the import policy only when a car is first time imported in India. If same make/model car has already been imported into India many times prior to the import of the appellant s car, customs authorities should not insist to produce such certificate from the country of origin. He further submitted that the goods imported do not fall into the category of prohibited goods, the adjudicating authority should have allowed to redeem the goods on payment of fine instead of confiscating the same. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 231 (Mad.) 3. Shailesh D. Redeej Vs. CC, Nhava Sheva-2011 (274) ELT 452 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. Prakash Sancheti Vs. CC, Ahmedabad-2013 (292) ELT 272 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 5. CC, Bangalore Vs. Rajat Gupta-2014 (306) ELT 537 (Kar.) 6. CC, Bangalore Vs. Syed Mehaboob Syed Kareem-2014 (306) ELT 565 (Kar.) 7. Aiyakannu Vs. JC, Customs, Chennai-2012 (281) ELT 223 (Mad.) 8. CC, Customs Vs. Jaspreet Singh Jolly-2013 (288) ELT 379 (Del.) 9. CC (Imports) Vs. Ganji mallaiah-2010 (259) ELT 58 (Bom.) 5. Heard both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the importer is not disputing that there has been a violation both by importing from a country other than that of manufacture and non-production of any Type Approval Certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this regard, we find that the import of car is not prohibited. Therefore, the adjudicating authority ordering for absolute confiscation has not given justified findings for absolute confiscation. In this regard, we find from several Tribunal decisions and Hon ble High Court decisions, where the goods are not prohibited, absolute confiscation is not warranted. We rely on the decision of the Hon ble CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Yakub Ebrahim Yuseph Vs. CC, Mumbai (supra) held that regarding absolute confiscation of such goods which are not prohibited in detail by referring all the previous decisions made by the Apex Court, various High Courts and other judicial forums in this regard and held as follows:- the prohibition relates to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for confiscation, the subject car should be released on a nominal redemption fine as done by adjudicating authorities/appellate authorities all over India. 10. Further, this Tribunal Bench in the case of Sarguroh Azam Gulzal Khan Vs. CC (Seaport-Import), Chennai in the Final Order No. 181/2010 dated 11.02.2010 also held that absolute confiscation is not warranted. Therefore, we hold that the adjudicating authority in the present case ordering for absolute confiscation is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that the order of absolute confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority is modified into an order of confiscation with an option for redemption of vehicle on payment of redemption fine and appropriate customs duty on such clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
