2000 (10) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a person who has been in possession and use of the car for a year prior to its importation. Subsequent to its clearance, the car was sold by the importer to the appellant through a broker. 2. Enquiries by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) subsequent to the clearance of the car showed that the car was manufactured not in 1989 as declared to the customs, but in 1992. These enquiries also showed that Rashmiben Patel, the importer, had been living in the USA when the car was imported, and had not taken any steps to transfer her residence to India. Notice was therefore issued to Rashmiben Patel and the appellant before us. The notice proposed to determine the value of the car by depreciating from the price of a car manufactured in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot rebutted before us, it would follow that the car has unauthorisedly been imported, rendering it liable to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act on account of the O.G.L. provision not being available, and under clause (m) because of misdeclaration of the value and of the year of manufacture. It is the appellant who is the owner of the car and who, if it wished to redeem it, would have to pay the fine, if any, fixed in lieu of confiscation. The contention that the appellant was an innocent purchaser is of no avail, any more than a person who buys, however innocently, stolen goods can resist these goods being taken away from him and being restored to the original owner. Therefore, if any redemption fine had been ordered to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eption to this principle. These provisions have evidently been introduced in order to recover duty on goods which have been imported in an unauthorised manner without having been declared on their arrival in the country. However it is not permissible, where the importer is known and in fact has been issued a notice proposing recovery of duty, simultaneously to demand duty from another person who is not the importer. The provisions of Section 125(2) of the Act are not intended to be used as a substitute for the provisions of Section 28 when circumstances prevent resort to that section. The demand for duty before us is therefore without authority of law. 8. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.  
Case laws, Decisions, Judgement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X