2008 (9) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Importer violated the conditions of policy liability of purchaser of goods from such importer held that buyer has absolutely no role in the import of the car or in the mis-declaration or in any offence connected with the import demand of duty from the appellant set aside confiscation and redemption fine also set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty and imposition of redemption fine on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant purchased a vehicle from a seller who had acquired it from the original importer. The vehicle was seized due to violations of EXIM Policy conditions and mis-declaration. The Commissioner confiscated the vehicle but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and interest. The appellant challenged the duty demand and redemption fine based on a Bombay High Court decision stating duty is payable only by the original importer, not subsequent buyers.

2. The appellant relied on the Bombay High Court decision, supported by a Supreme Court ruling, arguing that duty cannot be demanded from buyers post-release of goods. The Commissioner cited a Tribunal decision to justify the duty demand from the appellant, which the appellant contested due to the subsequent Bombay High Court ruling. The appellant also referenced a Supreme Court decision to contest the imposition of redemption fine on subsequent bona fide purchasers post-release of goods.

3. The Departmental Representative defended the redemption fine imposition under Section 125 of the Customs Act, citing the confiscation of the vehicle for violations. However, the appellant was deemed a bona fide purchaser without involvement in the import or mis-declaration, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the duty demand and redemption fine based on the cited legal precedents. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.