2017 (2) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported cars - redemption fine - penalty - the appellant is not the importer. In the SCN, the duty has not been demanded from the appellant. He was directed only to show cause as to why the impugned care should not be confiscated u/s 111(d) and 111(m) of the CA, 1962 - Held that - the said cars are imported by mis-declaring the year of make and manipulating the sales record. If the cars are liable for confiscation and held as confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, then the adjudicating authority was correct in extending the opportunity of redeeming the same on payment of redemption fine. Since the cars were provisionally released to appellant herein, he is liable to pay the redemption fine. In the facts and circumstance of these cases, we find that redemption fine imposed is not excessive - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Confiscation of imported cards, imposition of redemption fine, demand of duty.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved two appeals challenging an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The appeals raised a common question of law related to the confiscation of imported cards, imposition of redemption fine, and the demand of duty from the appellant. The appellant, not being the importer, argued that he should not be held liable for the duty demanded, as per the show cause notice. The duty had been demanded from the importers/their agents, not from the appellant. The Order-in-Original imposed a redemption fine and penalty on other individuals involved in the importation, but no penalty was imposed on the appellant. The appellant contended that the demand for duty from him, under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, was without legal authority, citing precedents where similar demands were deemed improper. The appellant also highlighted a case where a bonafide purchaser was not held liable for redemption fine, emphasizing the liability of the original importer for the duty under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the imported cars were liable for confiscation due to misdeclaration and manipulation of sales records. Since the cars were provisionally released to the appellant, he was held liable to pay the redemption fine. The Tribunal concluded that the redemption fine imposed was not excessive, considering the circumstances of the cases. Therefore, the appeals were rejected, and the decision was pronounced in court on 24/01/2017.