Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

RAMAN SOOD Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 (8) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Demand of duty - import of cars illegally - held that:- in the present case is that in the first instance the car in question was seized and released to the Mr. Hasanjee upon FIAA furnishing the BG of the entire customs duty in the sum of ₹ 5,35,118. There is no attempt made by the Department to explain why the said BG was not encashed and why it was allowed to lapse. Secondly, the Petitioner was not the first transferee. There were at least three earlier transferees of the car by way of s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ( CEGAT‟) disposing of the Departments appeal against the order-in-original dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the condition that they are re-exported within six months. It appears that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seized 13 of the 34 cars on the ground that they failed to comply with the said condition of re-export within six months. One of the cars of make Mercedes Benz forms the subject matter of the present petition. 4. One Mr. A. Hasanjee, who is a British national holding British passport, brought the said car to India some time in 1984. The said car was allowed to be released from the Custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioner upon his furnishing a BG and personal bond. 8. A show cause notice (SCN) dated 10th December 1993 was issued to several persons, including the Petitioner, who had dealt with the car. They were asked to show cause why the said car should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the CA and the penalty under Section 112 of the CA should not be imposed. The SCN noted the fact that the car had been released in the first instance upon FIAA furnishing the BG for the entire customs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed under the Carnet System and had not been re-exported and was liable to confiscation. The 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k guarantee. I impose upon Shri Abubacker Hasanjee and Shri Sandeep Bishnoi a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakhs only) each under Section 112 (a) and (b) of Customs Act 1962. 11. Aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT. Simultaneously the Customs Department also filed an appeal, which fact was not known to the Petitioner. For some reason, the Petitioner s appeal was taken up by the CEGAT first and not together with appeal filed by the Department. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Appellant at the time of obtaining release of the car and also prays that the RC book of the car which is with the authorities may be directed to be released to him. The authorities are directed to consider this aspect of the matter and release the documents and the RC book after verification of the above submission regarding 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to that extent. The Department s appeal on the said aspect was accordingly allowed. 14. The Petitioner states that he had no knowledge of the aforementioned order. He learnt of it only when he received the impugned demand notice dated 13th December 2002 calling upon him to pay the customs duty of ₹ 5,35,118. 15. Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that with the order-in-original of the Commissioner returning a finding that the Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the person from whom the illegally imported goods is recovered. Ms. Sharma accordingly submitted that the Petitioner could not escape the liability to pay the differential customs duty. She placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Nine Star Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Ports) 2003 (151) ELT 265 (Mad) and the decision dated 24th March 2015 of the Supreme Court in Fortis Hospital Limited v Commissioner of Customs, Import (Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 2008). 17. In the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pra) 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 in question was seized and released to the Mr. Hasanjee upon FIAA furnishing the BG of the entire customs duty in the sum of ₹ 5,35,118. There is no attempt made by the Department to explain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version