2016 (3) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Redemption fine and penalty - Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of second hand car by misdeclaring it as new car - Held that - appellant has purchased the car after clearance from the Customs as bona fide purchaser of the car. Therefore, the imported car is liable to be confiscation but as the redemption fine imposed is excessively high, it is to be reduced followed by the case of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics And Shri Vishvas Uday Singh Laad Versus C.C. (Import & General) , New Delhi 2015 (11) TMI 758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Also, as the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the car and no statement of the appellant was recorded and having no role in illegal importation of the car, the penalty under various provisions of the Customs Act namely, 112 (a), 114 AA & 114A is not imposable. Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under section 112(a) and 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background:
The case involved the importation of high-end luxury cars by mis-declaring them as new, when in reality, they were second-hand cars. The appellant was one of the co-noticees in the show cause notice issued for confiscation of the car and demanding differential duty from the importer. The car in question, a Land Rover, was initially imported by one individual and later sold to the appellant.

2. Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant, represented by Shri Kamaljeet Singh, contended that they were a bona fide purchaser of the car, having bought it in good faith after it was cleared by Customs. They argued that they had no direct connection with the illegal importation of the car and cited legal precedents to support their claim.

3. Tribunal's Findings:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant was indeed a bona fide purchaser of the car, having acquired it after it was cleared by Customs. The Tribunal also noted that the car was not old and had been imported by other individuals. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine imposed on the car, stating that the appellant was not liable for penalties under various provisions of the Customs Act.

4. Final Order:
The Tribunal held that the car was liable for confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3,50,000. No penalty was imposed on the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the appellant, the Tribunal's assessment of the facts, and the final decision reached in the case.