2016 (9) TMI 277 - AT - Customs

Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - Import of car for personal use - appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification No.4/97-2002 dated 31/03/2001 - car provisionally released on ITC Bond - Held that - it is found that the import of car is restricted. Anyone wishing to import a car has alternate route. The first route is to obtain a licence from the ministry of commerce and the 2nd route is to fulfill the conditions of Notification No.4/97-02. The appellant chose the second route and have failed to produce necessary certificate to avail the benefit of said notification. In these circumstances, the import of car is in violation of import export policy. Therefore, the impugned order rightly confiscated the car and imposed penalty. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Import of car for personal use, compliance with import policy, confiscation of car, penalty imposition, applicability of notification

The judgment deals with the case of an appellant who imported a car for personal use but failed to comply with the conditions of the relevant import export policy. The appellant requested provisional release of the car on ITC Bond pending compliance with the conditions of Notification No.4/97-2002. However, as the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the notification, the car was confiscated, and an option to redeem it on payment of a fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act was given. A penalty was also imposed on the appellant, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the conditions specified in Notification No.4/97-2002 were intended for manufacturers of motor vehicles and not for individuals importing for personal use. They referred to a subsequent notification, No.31/97-2002, to support their claim that the conditions did not apply to them. The appellant contended that there was no violation of the import policy, and therefore, the confiscation of the car was unjustified.

The Revenue's representative contended that the import of the car was restricted under the import export policy, requiring compliance with the conditions of Notification No.4/97-2002. The appellant had the option to obtain a license from the Ministry of Commerce for car importation. The Revenue argued that the appellant cannot claim that the notification was not applicable to them after choosing to produce the required certificate under the said notification.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the import of the car was indeed restricted, and importers had two options to comply with the policy: obtaining a license from the Ministry of Commerce or fulfilling the conditions of Notification No.4/97-2002. Since the appellant failed to produce the necessary certificate to benefit from the notification, the import was deemed a violation of the policy. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the car and the imposition of the penalty, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of compliance with import policies and the consequences of failing to meet the specified conditions, leading to the confiscation of the imported goods and the imposition of penalties as prescribed by law.