2009 (6) TMI 547 - AT - Customs

Transfer of Residence Rule- Car imported under Transfer of Residence Rules- Appeal against the prohibition of sale for two years. Benefit of Transfer of Residence Rules not given as vehicle not in possession for minimum prescribed period. Impugned issue settled by High Court Judgment in favour of appellant holding such prohibition not applicable when TR concession not given and fine and penalty paid. Impugned order to the extent of no-sale condition, set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of value in the import of a used vehicle.
2. Confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Appeal against the confiscation and penalties imposed.
4. Validity of the 'no sale' condition imposed on the vehicle.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a used 'Nissan Fair Lady' Car under Transfer of Residence Rules, but the minimum possession period required by ITC (HS) was not met. As a result, the vehicle was detained for examination. The adjudicating authority found a misdeclaration of value and ordered the re-determination of the value at Rs. 7,96,175, along with confiscation under Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was given the option to redeem the vehicle on payment of a redemption fine and penalty.

2. The appellant appealed against the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant contested the 'no sale' condition imposed on the vehicle for two years. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Customs Appeal No. 3/09 and 8/09, which stated that the prohibition on sale for two years only applied to cars imported under concessional duty rates, not in cases where TR benefit was declined.

3. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found that the 'no sale' condition imposed by the adjudicating authority was incorrect as the appellant did not avail TR benefit. Citing the High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the restriction on the appellant and allowed the appeal to that extent. The impugned order was deemed incorrect and not in accordance with the law established by the High Court. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant laws and the precedent set by the High Court judgment. The judgment clarified that the prohibition on sale for two years was not applicable in cases where TR benefit was not availed. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and established precedents in customs matters to ensure fair treatment and compliance with regulations.