New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 556 (Del.) - Import of car - high end luxury cars - new or used car - Denial of benefit of Notification dated 1st March 2002 as amended - confiscation of car under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - demand of differential customs duty and interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - the car was manufactured in G .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(C) 746 and 7779 of 2015 - Dated:- 1-6-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI‟) and the Commissioner of Customs, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively is whether the Customs & Central Excise Settlement .....

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 amount already deposited; the interest on the settled duty as to be calculated by the Revenue and adjusted from the amount deposited; imposed penalty of ₹ 4,00,000 and fine of ₹ 2,00,000 in lieu of confiscation; and granted immunity from the prosecution to the Petitioner. W.P.(C) No.7779/2015 pertains to the impugned order dated 30th March 2015 allowing the application of the Respondent to settle the differential customs duty at ₹ 12,99,987 to be appropriated from the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

including one Mr. Sumit Walia fraudulently importing high end luxury cars on large scale from various foreign clients by mis-declaring these cars as new cars whereas such cars were sold and registered in the country of export prior to being exported to India and thus fell in the category of second hand cars, thereby attracting higher rate of custom duties than what was paid. 4. It is stated that searches were conducted at the various premises of Mr. Sumit Walia situated in Delhi and NCR on 26th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid car was also recovered where the cost, interest and freight ( CIF‟) price for the said car was declared as GBF 61260 and the duty was discharged on concessional rate of basic customs duty at 60% by declaring it as a new car. 5. Based on the above facts, a show-cause notice ( SCN‟) dated 19/21st February 2013 was issued to the Respondent and others calling upon them to show cause as to why the assessable value should not be re-determined at ₹ 74,28,153.11; the benefit of Not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed a Settlement Application No. 3854 of 2013 before the CCESC, New Delhi on 10th September 2013. The Respondent admitted the duty liability on account of undervaluation to the tune of ₹ 9,84,236 but it contested the allegation concerning wrongful availment of exemption notification. 7. The DRI, in response to the above application, filed a detailed report before the CCESC dated 6th November 2013. 8. By the impugned order dated 19th June 2014, the CCESC gave directions in the manner as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was found that one Porsche Panamera 4S was imported by Bill of Entry No. 783133 dated 22nd March 2010 in the name of one Mr. Manish Dev Sharma, a resident of Yusuf Sarai, Green Park, Delhi. The invoice No. 45400 dated 11th March 2010 raised by M/s. Continental Motors, U.K. in respect of the said car was also recovered where the CIF price for the said car was declared as GBF 64500 and the duty was discharged on concessional rate of basic customs duty at 60% by declaring it as a new car. 10. Base .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not be recovered and penalty under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the CA should not be levied; differential duty of ₹ 30,00,000 deposited should not be appropriated to the government account and the bank guarantee of ₹ 10,00,000 furnished by Mr. Sanjiv Aggarwal, Director of the Respondent company should not be enforced and appropriated to the government account. 11. The Respondent then filed a Settlement Application No. 4120 of 2014 before the CCESC, New Delhi on 13th March 2014. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20th January 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 243-244 of 2014 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Rohan Anirudha Seolekar) where the question involved concerned the import of a vehicle which had been registered in U.K. prior to its import and whether the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 would be applicable. It is submitted out that since the issue in the present petition is al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the Customs in India on 4th April 2008 on payment of duty on the basis that it was a new car. In those circumstances, the Court in that case was not prepared to accept the case of the DRI that the purchaser of the car had acted in connivance with the importer and he was aware of all the facts at the time of import. It was held that the Department had failed to discharge its prima facie onus of showing the involvement of the purchaser of the car with its importer. The Court s attention has also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rchased by M/s A K international Ltd UK. In the impugned order dated 19th June 2014, the CCESC has recorded a finding of fact in paragraph 17.5 as follows: 17.5 In the present case, the car was sold by the manufacturer to the authorized dealer M/s. Stratastone AML Hagley in November, 2007. The car was in turn sold by the authorized dealer to Mis. A.K. International (IE) Ltd. U.K. on 11.02.2008 and registered on the same date with registration No. B057 GKN on 11.02.2008. At this time the Odometer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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