2018 (6) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was demanded from the appellant Shri Aslam Khan and penalty of equal amount was also imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was based in Dubai and was arranging supply of car. In India, Shri Cyril Anand Fernandez filed Bill of Entry and cleared the car. The car was subsequently sold to one Shri Murli Manohar Pandey from whom the car was seiz .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Section 125(2). In that case, no further duty can be demanded from the appellant. He submits that the demand was made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of CC(I), Mumbai vs. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre - 2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the confiscated goods are released, duty should be collected under Section 125(2). In such case, Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the demand under Section 28 cannot be confirmed against the appellant irrespective of whatever role he has played in the import of the car. It is also a fact on record that the goods have been released to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey who was the owner of the car at the relevant time, on payment of customs duty and redemption fine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Cancer & Research Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X