2016 (6) TMI 460 - HC - Customs

Import of second hand cars misdeclaring them as new - Eligibility for grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1st March 2002 - to settle differential customs duty and interest - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Held that - by giving the proximity of the date of manufacture and the date of import of the car it cannot be said that the said car ceased to be a new car and became a second hand car at the time of its import. The impugned order of the CCESC giving the benefit of the Customs Notification dated 1st March 2002 and determining the differential customs duty to the tune of 7, 92, 228 cannot be said to be perverse and warranting any interference by this Court. Other directions issued by the CCESC regarding interest penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation and granting immunity from prosecution to the Respondent also do not require interference by this Court. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission's decision.
2. Allegations of fraudulent import of luxury cars.
3. Re-determination of assessable value and customs duty.
4. Settlement application filed by the Respondent.
5. Legal precedents and interpretation of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Customs.
6. Date of registration of the imported car and its classification as new or second hand.
7. Validity of the impugned order by the CCESC.

Analysis:

1. The writ petition involved a challenge to the decision of the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission (“CCESC”) granting benefits to the Respondent Gurmeet Singh Soni under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs. The petitioners, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Commissioner of Customs, questioned the justification of allowing the application, settling the differential customs duty, interest determination, fine imposition, penalty levy, and immunity grant from prosecution by the CCESC.

2. The case revolved around allegations of fraudulent import of high-end luxury cars by misdeclaring them as new cars to avail benefits under Customs Notification No. 21/2002. The syndicates involved in the fraudulent imports were found to be importing second-hand cars but declaring them as new, leading to a lower customs duty payment than required.

3. Following the recovery of incriminating documents and scrutiny, a show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent, calling for re-determination of assessable value, denial of notification benefits, recovery of differential customs duty, interest, penalty levy, and appropriation of deposited amounts towards duty payment.

4. Respondent filed a Settlement Application admitting duty liability due to undervaluation but contesting the allegation of wrong exemption notification availment before the CCESC, which prompted a detailed report by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in response to the application.

5. Legal precedents, including a Supreme Court order and previous High Court decisions, were cited to support arguments regarding the interpretation of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Customs in cases involving the import of vehicles registered in foreign countries prior to importation.

6. The judgment analyzed the date of registration of the imported car and its manufacturing date to determine whether it qualified as a new or second-hand car at the time of import, emphasizing the proximity of these dates as a crucial factor in classification.

7. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decision of the CCESC, stating that the impugned order granting benefits under the Customs Notification, determining differential duty, and issuing other directions was not perverse and did not warrant interference. The Court found no grounds to challenge the CCESC's decision on interest, penalty, fine, and immunity from prosecution, thus disposing of the writ petition accordingly.