Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Gagandeep Singh Anand, Shri Hardarshan Singh Oberoi Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

2017 (8) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Confiscation - rejection of assessable value - Toyota Land Cruiser Prado - misdeclaration of offended car - smuggling - Appellant's submission is that there can neither be seizure nor confiscation since the car has already been released. Neither the first buyer nor the subsequent buyers were involved in the import alleged to be made in violation of law - Held that: - It is admitted fact on record that there was deliberate mis-declaration of year of manufacture as well as chassis number. It 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

2(39) thereof. - The fraudulent mis-declaration and active as well as conscious involvement not being appreciated, the parties therein got relief. But, in the present case, it is the case of deliberate mis-declaration and commitment of fraud against Customs abusing the benefit of the Transfer of Residence (TR) Rules, 2002 , there shall be no escape from the penal consequence of law by these appellants. - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/182 & 202/09 - A/8872 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ferential duty of ₹ 8,86,846/- demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest thereon under Section 28AB thereof from the date of clearance of the car till the date of recovery of the differential duty from Shri Gagandeep Singh Anand. (ii) Confiscation of the vehicle i.e. Toyota Land Cruiser Prado imported under Bill of Entry No. 290147 dated 2.9.2002 valued at ₹ 10,15,358/- in the name of Shri Kirti Kumar Dholakiya under Section 111(d), 111(m) & 111(o) of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ority brought out the summary of the allegations as under: - (A) Shri Kirti Kumar Dholakiya had filed a Bill of Entry No. 290147 dated 2.9.2002 for the import of one Toyota Land Cruiser Prado at the Mumbai Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. The importer had declared the vehicle as an old and used vehicle of 1997 make and was accordingly subjected to customs duty as applicable to an old and used vehicle of 1997 make. In the year 2002, the customs duty payable on a old vehicle was Basic custom .....

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 importer had declared the value as Dhs 28,5001- to customs, at the time of import. (C) The vehicle was examined at MIs. Lakozy Motors Pvt Ltd, Okhla, New Delhi. On examination the chassis number was found to be the same as declared, however the date of manufacture of the vehicle was found as 26.04.2001. Thus at the time of import, the importer had mis-declared the model year of the vehicle as 1997 to claim higher depreciation. (D) Shri H.S. Oberoi, Proprietor of M/s H.S. Oberoi & Co. h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o Mr. Kirti Kumar Dholakiya and Registration Cancellation Certificate No. 01264 dated 12.03.2002, regarding cancellation of the vehicle registration in Japan, both clearing mentioning the model year as 2002, he was well aware that the year of manufacture declared to customs is tampered and incorrect. (E) The vehicle service records of M/s Lakozy Motors Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, clearly reveal that the said Toyota Prado vehicle was in possession of Shri H.S. Oberoi of M/s H.S. Oberoi & Co. for 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

of manufacture as well as value thereof to avail higher depreciation under Invoice No. 0233 dated 15.8.2002 issued by M/s World Wide Motors, Dubai. The vehicle was shipped from Dubai on 21.8.2002 declaring the chassis no. VZJ95-0085357 and assessable value of ₹ 5,27,250/-. Customs duty of ₹ 9,57,963/- was paid. 3.2 The vehicle imported was declared to be old one of 1997 model having chassis No. VZJ95-0085357 to claim depreciation of 60% of the value. But detail examination of the ve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Shri Manvir Singh Oberoi in the RTO, Gurgaon and original Registration made in Japan was cancelled vide Certificate No. 01264 dated 12.3.2002. That came to the notice of the investigation. The year of first registration in India was January, 2002. The first seller of the vehicle was Indus Trading Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Investigation accordingly alleged that the vehicle first came from Japan to Dubai and subsequently came from Dubai to India, was not new car but old and used. 4. Investigation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l code as well as vehicle name from the principal manufacturer in Japan i.e. M/s Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan. The Japanese manufacturer vide their letter No. TKM/IMPEX/DRI/06-07 dated 5.10.2006 informed the particulars of the offending vehicle as under: - Item Description Vehicle Name Land Cruiser Vehicle Model Code VZJ95W-GKPGK Chassis No. VZJ95-0085357 Engine Type 5VZ-FE Engine No. 1288525 Month & year of Mfg. 26.4.2001 Manufacturing Country Japan Date of first registration 27.4.2001 C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5. Investigation recorded statements from various persons, who were connected with the import. 6. Appellant s submission is that there can neither be seizure nor confiscation since the car has already been released. Neither the first buyer nor the subsequent buyers were involved in the import alleged to be made in violation of law. It is further submission of the appellant that if at all there is any violation, it is only the original importer, who is liable to answer to law. Both the appellants .....

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 decision of Tribunal in the case of VXL India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2000 (122) ELT 710 (Tri) to submit that the bona fide purchaser should not face consequence of confiscation and redemption nor also any duty is demandable from them. That decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court dismissing the SLP of Revenue reported in 2006 (197) ELT A121 (SC). Appellants further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fortis Hospital Ltd. Vs. Commissione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation was deliberately made to claim depreciation @ 60% as against 22% permissible. Therefore, the vehicle was liable to be confiscated and seized irrespective of the fact that the same was possessed by subsequent buyer. Mr. Dholakia, who was importer, deliberately remained quite without answering to the summons of the department nor also filed any reply to show-cause. He provided bogus address for which the communication of the investigation could not reach to him. When the real manufacturer in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version