9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Abeer Shipping Est., P.O. Box No. 21307, Dubai, UAE, on receipt of the said car. The Appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 448023 dated 29-3-2004 for clearance of the said car claiming Public Notice No. 3(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 31-3-2000. The assessable value of the car was computed by the Group VB, Customs as Rs. 9,36,395/-. 4.However, the car in question was seized. It was alleged that the B/L dated 26-1-2004 was predated deliberately by the Appellant to circumvent the condition of one year possession notified vide Notification No. 29 (RE-2004) 2002-2007 w.e.f. 28-1-2004. The relevant portion is produced as below :- "Individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad provided the car have been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the House Bill of Lading by M/s. Abeer Cargo Est. was issued on 25-1-2004. (b) the absolute confiscation of the seized car was not sustainable in view of the Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, (c) in identical circumstances, the cars were being released on payment of redemption fine and the Order suffered on the vice of discrimination. 7.The ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) gave a personal hearing and was apprised of the fact that goods were not notified as prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The absolute confiscation was set aside. The Commissioner was further cognizant of huge demurrage and detention charges having been suffered by the appellant and deemed it fit to take a lenient view in the matter. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of vehicle on account of its stationary condition. Considering the totality of circumstances including that the car was for personal use, there is no scope for involvement of principles of margin of profit. Particularly when the condition of the vehicle has deteriorated on account of its confiscation. It was further submitted that the decision in the "Garg Woollen Mills (P) Ltd." is not applicable in the facts of the present case and for being related to prohibited goods. (iv) The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of "C.C. v. Marmo Classic" reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 14 (Bom.). (v) It was contended that the Appellant was eligible for the benefit of Public Notice 3(RE-2000) date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31-3-2000 cannot be claimed by the appellant. Therefore, confiscation is upheld. Since the car in question was purchased for his own use and imported at the time of permanent return to India he cannot be attributed with any motive of profit-making. It is not controverted by the DR either. In the fact and circumstances of the present case the ends of justice would meet by reducing redemption fine to Rs. 25,000/- and the amount of penalty to Rs. 5,000/- as the appellant has already suffered on account of detention, demurrage and deterioration of the car. I order the release of the car forthwith on deposit of the aforesaid amount along with the applicable duties so as to avoid unnecessary burden on the appellant of further demurrage/dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
