2016 (4) TMI 537 - HC - Customs

Confiscation and imposition of redemption fine as well as penalty u/s 112A & 114AA of the Act - Seizure of imported high end luxury car - Mis-declared as new car and evasion of payment of customs duty as under-invoiced - Held that - the Court is not persuaded to come to a different conclusion from adjudication order as well as the impugned order of the CESTAT where the CESTAT has come to a definite finding that the respondent was a bonafide purchaser of the car and had no role in its importation. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Exemption application
2. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal
3. Appeal by the Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

Exemption Application:
The exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:
The delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.

Appeal by the Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appeal was against an order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) where the Respondent's appeal against the order-in-original was allowed. The Respondent purchased an imported car, which was later seized by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during an investigation. The issue was whether the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the Respondent were justified. The CESTAT found that the Respondent was a bonafide purchaser and had no role in the importation of the car. The High Court, after reviewing the adjudication order and evidence, upheld the CESTAT's findings, stating no substantial question of law arose for determination. Consequently, the appeal and application were dismissed.