TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 02/2008, dated 1-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. 2. Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri V.P.C. Rao, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellant purchased a Porsche Carrera Vehicle from one Shri Shailesh Kumar. Shri Shailesh Kumar also purchased it from the original importer of the car. The original importer is one Shri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil. On the basis of the intelligence, certain investigations were carried out by the DRI. The vehicle was seized from the possession of the appellant. It was seen that the original importer violated the EXIM Policy conditions in selling the vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered to be confiscated, the owner of the goods shall, in addition to redemption fine, be liable to pay any duty payable. In our judgment, both these provisions cannot be invoked simultaneously. It is the importer of goods who is liable to pay duty on the goods that he has imported. Customs duty is a duty on import. Hence, obviously, no one else normally be required to pay that duty. The definition of the term 'imported' in Section 2 of the Act as including at any time between the importation of the goods and their clearance for home consumption, their owner is significant. It is evidently intended to provide for recovery of duty on goods imported by one person, deposited in a bounded warehouse and cleared by another to whom they are sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra), the reliance on this decision is not justified. 5.2 As regards the imposition of RF, our attention was invited to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CCE, Kochi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held that after the goods have been released, it would not be proper to impose RF from the subsequent bona fide purchasers. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 6 of the said decision are reproduced below: "6 In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that after issuing a notice as contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, to the importer of the goods in question and adjudication proceeding under Section 125 had been conducted and the goods in question were release ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in the open market. In this background, we are of the opinion that the action of the Department to initiate proceedings against the appellant, who is a bona fide purchaser of the redeemed goods for value, is unjust and hence not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case." In view of this, the learned Advocate urged that the redemption fine is liable to be set aside. 5.3 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative took us through the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act. He said that any goods, which are held liable to confiscation, can be released on redemption fine. In the present case, it has been clearly held that for violation of the post-import condition and also for mis-declaration, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
