2008 (3) TMI 540 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seeking waiver of pre-deposit of customs duty, redemption fine, and penalties under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation of not installing the imported vehicle in the hotel for use as a tourist vehicle for earning foreign exchange.
3. Discrepancy in maintaining specific records for the imported car under the EPCG license.
4. Prima facie evaluation of evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of customs duty, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was registered under the EPCG Scheme and permitted to import a Toyota Land Cruiser V8. However, allegations were made regarding the failure to use the vehicle for the intended purpose of earning foreign exchange, leading to penalties and confiscation orders.

2. The core issue revolved around the allegation that the appellant did not install the imported vehicle in the hotel for use as a tourist vehicle to generate foreign exchange. Despite arguments and evidence presented by the appellant's counsel, including the conversion of the vehicle into a tourist vehicle and evidence of foreign exchange receipts, the Commissioner found discrepancies in maintaining specific records and concluded a violation of the EPCG license.

3. Another significant issue was the discrepancy in maintaining specific records for the imported car under the EPCG license. The appellant had executed a Bank Guarantee and Bond with the customs house but faced challenges regarding the usage of the vehicle for the designated purpose. The Revenue directed the appellant to surrender the car or comply with the impugned order, highlighting the importance of adhering to the EPCG scheme regulations.

4. Upon evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not establish a strong case in their favor. While the appellant made efforts to rectify the situation and provided evidence of usage for foreign tourists, discrepancies in the records and findings by the Commissioner raised doubts. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount, keep the Bond and Bank Guarantee alive, and stay the recovery of duty, penalty, and redemption fine pending the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay applications and miscellaneous application accordingly, emphasizing compliance with the specified terms to avoid dismissal of the appeal. The matter was scheduled for final hearing, with directions to safeguard revenue interests and prevent seizure of the vehicle upon compliance with the specified conditions.