2015 (5) TMI 956 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - appellant could not explain the proper importation of the bike and took a view that he did not have valid documents - Held that - It was given to him by a film producer because his dues could not be paid. Even then I have to take note that the vehicle had been duly registered and therefore it cannot be said that appellant had knowledge of the vehicle having been illegally imported even if it is so. Further the reply given by the Transport authorities also supports the case of the appellant. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant has smuggled the vehicle and therefore is liable to penalty. In view of the above, appeal is allowed and impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Possession of an imported motor vehicle without proper importation documents.
2. Confiscation of the motorcycle and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Validity of the appellant's explanation regarding possession of the vehicle and registration process.
4. Interpretation of the law on illegal importation and liability for penalties.

Analysis:
1. The investigation revealed that the appellant was in possession of an imported motor vehicle without proper importation documents, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the appellant. The motorcycle was confiscated, and a fine of &8377; 2 lakhs along with a penalty of &8377; 50,000 was imposed.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the appellant did have valid documents for the vehicle. The appellant received the bike from a purchaser who could not pay the due amount, and the vehicle was registered by the RTO. The appellant believed the vehicle was properly imported based on the registration process. The appellant also presented information from the Joint Commissioner of Transport supporting the registration process based on the Bill of Lading.

3. The judge acknowledged the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. Despite receiving the vehicle due to unpaid dues, the registration of the vehicle by the RTO indicated that the appellant may not have had knowledge of any illegal importation. The response from the Transport authorities further supported the appellant's case. Therefore, it was concluded that the appellant did not smuggle the vehicle and should not be held liable for penalties.

4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders for confiscation and penalties were set aside based on the findings that the appellant had a valid explanation for the possession of the imported vehicle and had acted in good faith believing in the legality of the registration process.