9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of imported vehicle under Customs Act, 1962 - Demand of duty on imported vehicle - Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act Confiscation of Imported Vehicle: The case involved an appeal by the department and the importer against an order by the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh regarding the confiscation of a Mercedes Benz car imported by the importer, subject to re-export within a specified period. The vehicle was found in the importer's possession beyond the re-export deadline, leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Collector imposed duty and a penalty on the importer. The department argued for confiscation based on precedents indicating independence of proceedings under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act. The importer contested confiscation, citing failure to issue a Show Cause Notice within the prescribed time limit. Demand of Duty on Imported Vehicle: The importer challenged the duty demanded on the vehicle, claiming an exaggerated valuation by the department. The declared value under the carnet system was significantly lower than the value determined by the department. The importer argued for a reduction in value based on the vehicle's age and lack of clarity on the valuation methodology used by the department. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112: The imposition of a personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was contested by the importer on the grounds of ambiguity in specifying the violated clause of Section 112 in the order. Citing a judgment by the Madras High Court, the importer argued that clarity on the specific clause of Section 112 is essential for a sustainable penalty order. Consequently, the penalty imposed was set aside by the Tribunal in line with the legal precedent. In its judgment, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of compliance with re-export obligations under the carnet system. The Tribunal rejected leniency due to deliberate violation of legal obligations and ordered absolute confiscation of the vehicle. Given the confiscation order, the Tribunal did not delve into the issue of duty demand on the vehicle. Additionally, the penalty imposed was set aside by the Tribunal based on the requirement for specific reference to the violated provisions of Section 112. The department's appeal for confiscation was allowed, leading to the absolute confiscation of the Mercedes Car, while the importer's appeal resulted in the setting aside of the penalty.
|
