TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department. In other words he Petitioner bought the car without the knowledge of it being illegally imported on account of the failure to re-export it within six months from the date of its import. Thirdly, the impugned order of the CEGAT was passed ex parte, i.e., without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. - Demand set aside. - W.P.(C) 2091/2003 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2016 - S.MURALIDHAR AND J VIBHU BAKHRU JJ Mr. Rajiv K. Garg with Mr. Ashish Garg and Ms. Kavita Rawat, Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Senior standing counsel with Ms. Neha Chugh, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER: 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 6th March 2000 passed by the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d July 1985 upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 1,25,000. He is stated to have absconded soon after. Later in 1985, the car was registered in the name of Mr. Iqbal Peer Mohammed of Mumbai with the transport authority of Mumbai and was given registration No. MAS 9108. Subsequently, the car was sold to Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi. It was brought from Mumbai to Delhi and was registered in the name of Mr. Bishnoi under registration No. DAC-8181. 6. Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi is stated to have sold the said car to Mr. Suresh Jain of M/s. Suresh Jain Associates. In 1991 Mr. Suresh Jain sold the said car to M/s. Ajay Enterprises Ltd., the Director of which is Mr. Raman Sood, the Petitioner herein. 7. On 12th June 1993 the officers of the Customs D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation has also been revealed any evidence to show that Suresh Jain or Raman Sood had any knowledge about the liability of the car to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no evidence to support the allegations as contained in the show cause notice against Suresh Jain and Raman Sood. 10. Qua the Petitioner the operative portion of the said order reads as under: I order confiscation of Mercedes Benz car Model 280S having Indian number 926-20-002492 and Chassis No. WDB-126021-200-17913 under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act. However the car has already been released on execution of a bond and furnishing a bank guarantee. I accordingly, order that an am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding deposit of the fine. 12. Consequent upon the order of the GEGAT, the Petitioner is stated to have sold the car further to one Mr. Balwant Singh on 1st July 1999 for a sum of ₹ 1.70 lakhs. 13. Meanwhile, the Department‟s appeal against the order dated 27th December 1996 of the Commissioner was taken up for hearing by the CEGAT. As the final order dated 6th March 2000 shows, none appeared for the Petitioner. The said order was passed ex parte. After referring to Section 125 of the CA, which provides for payment of duty at the time of exercising the option of redeeming the goods, it was observed that the order-in-original suffered from legal infirmity to that extent. The Department s appeal on the said aspect was accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortis Hospital Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Import (supra) was rendered in the context of import of diagnostic equipment. In the said decision it was held that there could not be a recovery of customs duty with reference to Section 125 (2) of the CA if the option for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of Section 125 (1) of the CA is not exercised. The decision in Nine Star Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Ports) (supra) is also distinguishable on facts. It did not involve the transfer of the imported goods to several persons and an attempt at recovering customs duty only from the last of such transferees. 18. A fact which is not disputed by the Department in the present case is that in the first instance the car i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
