9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Undervaluation and violation of Customs Act by importers. 2. Confiscation and penalties imposed by Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. 3. Grounds of appeal by Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana. 4. Appeal by Shri Debdeep Sinha regarding his involvement in the import. 5. Arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the registration of the car in the UK. 6. Detailed analysis and judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi. Undervaluation and Violation of Customs Act: The case involved the import of a Jaguar car by Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana, where investigations revealed the import operation was orchestrated by individuals other than the importer. The vehicle was undervalued, violating Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, and lacked the necessary import license as per ITC Exim Policy. The importers, including Shri Kanyana, were found to have contravened Customs Act provisions, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation and penalties. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed: The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, denied the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 and ordered the confiscation of the car, offering redemption on payment of a fine. Penalties were imposed on Shri Kanyana and Shri Debdeep Sinha under Section 112 of the Customs Act, along with others involved in the import scheme. Grounds of Appeal - Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana: Shri Kanyana argued that the car was imported under transfer of residence rules, citing benefits under ITC Public Notice. He contested the denial of Notification No. 21/2002 benefits, claiming errors in the assessment and valuation process, and challenging the redemption fine and penalties imposed. Appeal by Shri Debdeep Sinha: Shri Sinha maintained his lack of involvement in the import process, stating he only leased the car post-customs clearance. He contended that he should not be penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Revenue's Arguments on Car Registration: The Revenue presented evidence showing the car was registered in the UK under different names before being imported into India, disproving Shri Kanyana's claim of transfer of residence. They argued that the import was illegal, lacking the necessary license and violating Customs Act provisions. Appellate Tribunal's Judgment: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings on Shri Kanyana's involvement in the import scheme, noting discrepancies in his income and the orchestrated nature of the operation. The confiscation of the vehicle and penalties imposed on Shri Kanyana were deemed lawful. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty on Shri Sinha, as his actions post-customs clearance did not violate Section 112 of the Customs Act. In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of accordingly by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, after thorough consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented.
|
