9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 464 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty - penalty imposed on the ground that the appellant has abetted the commission of the offence - HELD THAT - The BMW M5 car was imported in the name of Mrs. Sadhana Aggarwal. She has already filed an application before the Settlement Commission regarding the duty involved and settled the issue vide order dated 19.07.2012, wherein she has been imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- by the Settlement Commission for the commission of the offence. The appellant has imported another Range Rover car in his name for which separate proceedings have been initiated and it is still pending. Along with importation of his car, he has dealt with importation of BMW M5 car in the name of his wife. The offence related to BMW M5 car has been settled by the Settlement Commission by settling the duty, interest and imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- and fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh in lieu confiscation of the vehicle. As Mrs.Sadhana Aggarwal has already been penalized for the offence related to importation of the BMW M5 Car, there are no reason to impose penalty against the appellant for the same offence. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Imposition of penalty on the appellant for importation of a BMW M5 Car in the name of his wife, Mrs. Sadhana Aggarwal.
Summary: Issue 1 - Imposition of Penalty: The appellant appealed against the penalty of Rs.5.00 Lakhs imposed on him for the importation of a BMW M5 Car in the name of his wife. The Settlement Commission had settled the duty, interest, and penalty for Mrs. Sadhana Aggarwal, the importer of the car. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty on the appellant for abetting the offense, claiming he had negotiated the deal for the car. The appellant denied any significant role in the importation, stating he only made the payment on behalf of his wife. The appellant's involvement was based on his statement admitting negotiations with the seller, Mr. Haren Choksey. However, the Settlement Commission had already penalized Mrs. Sadhana Aggarwal for the offense related to the BMW M5 Car importation. The appellant's role was limited to making the payment, and there was no clear evidence of his direct involvement in the offense. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
