2008 (9) TMI 279 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of car on ground that car was not imported from USA ( country of manufacture) and no TAC (Type Approval Certificate) was produced - As designated agency from country of manufacture do not figure in the Policy Circular referred to in the licensing note, the importer could not be required to produce any such certificate when he imports a vehicle from the USA - further, allegation that car not imported from USA, is not justified in view of fact that the Bill of Lading submitted at the time of import along with B/E shows that car had been imported from USA via Thailand - confiscation and penalty not justified

Summary

Issues: Violation of conditions under the Customs Act leading to confiscation of imported car, requirement of Type Approval Certificate (TAC) for imported vehicles, import of car from Thailand instead of the USA, interpretation of Policy Circular, appeal against penalty and fine imposed.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs confiscating an imported car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposing a fine of Rs. Eight lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. Two lakhs for violating conditions under the Exim Policy. The appellant imported a 'Hummer H2' car from Thailand instead of the USA, failing to produce a Type Approval Certificate (TAC) as required for vehicles valued over US$40,000. The Commissioner's decision was based on the violation of import conditions.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the Policy Circular did not specify any accredited agency for issuing TAC for cars manufactured in the USA, thus the importer was not obligated to provide such a certificate. Referring to previous tribunal decisions, it was contended that fulfilling impossible conditions should not be enforced, and penalties for such violations should be revoked. The counsel presented evidence showing the import route of the vehicle from the USA via Thailand, meeting the requirement of import from the country of manufacture.

3. The respondent contended that the circular should not exclude the USA as a country of manufacture for cars frequently imported into India. Questioning the authenticity of the circular provided by the appellant, it was suggested that a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner was necessary to reexamine all aspects of the case with the newly submitted documents.

4. Upon reviewing the case records and arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant was wrongly penalized for not producing a TAC from the USA, as the Policy Circular did not specify such a requirement. Additionally, the evidence presented indicated that the car was indeed imported from the USA via Thailand, contrary to the Commissioner's finding. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the import did not violate policy provisions, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant laws and evidence presented during the appeal process.