9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of predating the Bill of Lading to circumvent possession condition. 2. Confiscation of imported car due to alleged violation of Customs Act. 3. Imposition of penalties and redemption fine on the importer and cargo company. 4. Applicability of Public Notice dated 31-3-2000 and Notification dated 28-1-2004. 5. Consideration of demurrage, detention charges, and vehicle condition in the judgment. Issue 1: Allegation of Predating Bill of Lading: The appellant imported a second-hand Toyota Land Cruiser car from Dubai, which was seized due to an allegation of predating the Bill of Lading to circumvent possession conditions. The notification required a minimum one-year possession abroad before importation to India, and the issue revolved around the date of possession and the relevance of the Bill of Lading date. Issue 2: Confiscation and Penalties: The Joint Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of the car and imposed penalties on the importer and the cargo company under Sections 111(d) and 112(i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the confiscation, citing the applicability of Section 125 of the Act and alleged discrimination in similar cases. Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties and Redemption Fine: The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the confiscation, considering that the imported goods were not prohibited, and reduced the penalties and redemption fine due to demurrage and detention charges incurred by the appellant. The appellant further contested the redemption fine and penalties during the appeal process. Issue 4: Applicability of Public Notice and Notification: The appellant argued for the benefit of Public Notice dated 31-3-2000, while the Department contended that the notification dated 28-1-2004 applied to the case due to the date of the Master Bill of Lading. The judgment analyzed the relevance of these notifications and their impact on the importation process. Issue 5: Consideration of Demurrage and Vehicle Condition: The judgment considered the demurrage, detention charges, and the deteriorating condition of the vehicle due to its stationary state post-seizure. The court balanced these factors with the principles of profit-making, applicability of previous judgments, and the personal use aspect of the imported car in determining the appropriate redemption fine and penalties. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalties considering the appellant's circumstances. The judgment balanced legal provisions, notifications, and practical considerations related to demurrage and vehicle condition in reaching a fair decision.
|
