TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unable to concur with the findings of the lower authorities that no sale restriction has been breached by taking possession of the vehicle on lease. The distinction between sale and lease is not only substantive but also legally unassailable - the appellant cannot be held liable as a willful participant in breaching conditions of import. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant does not sustain. Demand of differential duty - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the differential duty confirmed by the lower authorities under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be fastened on the appellant as a substitute for the importer. Confiscation for misdeclaration of value - alleged breach of condition of no sale - HELD THAT:- Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellant, Ms Marina J Mahi, from whom seizure was effected by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 11th July 2008, having been misdeclared by concealing evidence of manufacture in 2003. Further proceedings culminated in order of the original authority demanding differential duty of ₹ 18,64,198, along with offer enabling redemption of the confiscated vehicle on payment of fine of ₹ 10,00,000, and imposing penalty of ₹ 10,00,000 on the appellant; besides, it was also stipulated that all the liabilities enumerated therein would be recovered from either of importer, or of appellant, seeking redemption of the vehicle. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I, vide order-in-appeal no. 38 39/MCH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquire the vehicle thereafter. It is also on record that the importer had availed loan of ₹ 30,00,000 from M/s ICICI Bank in January 2004 against vehicle as security in which the appellant, as possessor of the vehicle, was incorporated as co-applicant. Further, it is on record that, M/s Lakozy Pvt Ltd, with expert knowledge of such vehicles, had reported certain peculiarities in the placement of the plate bearing chassis number while advising that year of manufacture and, other details, could be obtained through M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, the Indian affiliate of the overseas manufacturer. 4. Learned Counsel contends that the appellant was not concerned with the import and, hence, could not be made responsible for any liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the conditions stipulated for such imports were required to be strictly enforced. The findings of the original authority on the role of the appellant was reiterated during the course of the hearing. 6. The appellant has not contested the findings of the original authority, as upheld by the first appellate authority, that the plate bearing chassis number had been tampered with intent to evade duties of customs by misrepresenting the age of the vehicle. We, therefore, forbear from examining the evidences in support of the misdeclaration and restrict the scope of this proceeding to the claim of the appellant that she has not been involved in breach of condition of no sale subject to which such imported vehicles are permitted to be cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion employed in the restriction is specific to sale which lease transactions cannot be equated with. Hence, the appellant cannot be held liable as a willful participant in breaching conditions of import. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant does not sustain. 9. There is also no doubt that the differential duty confirmed by the lower authorities under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot, in the light of decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay and of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, be fastened on the appellant as a substitute for the importer. 10. The vehicle was held to be liable to confiscation for misdeclaration of value as well as for alleged breach of condition of no sale ; though the relative gravity of each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
