9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the Honda motor car as a sample under para 146 of the Import Policy AM 1981-82. 2. Whether the value limit prescribed at Rs. 50,000/- could be condoned by the Customs authorities or if the excess value requires adjudication. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the Honda motor car as a sample under para 146 of the Import Policy AM 1981-82: The appellants imported a Honda motor car without wheels and tyres, claiming clearance as a sample under para 146 of the Import Policy AM 1981-82 against a REP licence. The Department objected, stating that motor cars are governed by a distinct provision of the Policy and can only be imported by eligible persons with a specific Customs clearance permit or licence. The Dy. Collector of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of the vehicle and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, a decision upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Shri Nankani, representing the appellants, argued that the REP licence was issued based on their own exports and that motor cars were not specifically excluded from para 146 during the AM 1981-82 Policy period. He asserted that the car could be imported as a sample and that the appellants had sought clarification from the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, who confirmed that even items not related to their export product could be imported as samples. Shri Mondal, representing the respondents, contended that the motor car could not be construed as a sample and that there was no evidence to suggest it was intended for sample purposes. He argued that the appellants' intention was to import the car for personal use and that their actions were a clever device to exploit para 146 of the Import Policy. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish their claim that the car was imported as a sample. The correspondence with the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and the suppliers did not indicate that the car was intended as a sample for study or development of export products. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' claim was not supported by the factual position and that their action could be construed as a deliberate attempt to import a prohibited item under the guise of para 146. 2. Whether the value limit prescribed at Rs. 50,000/- could be condoned by the Customs authorities or if the excess value requires adjudication: Shri Nankani argued that the CIF value of the car exceeded the prescribed limit by only Rs. 2,686 due to exchange rate fluctuations, and this excess value should be adjudicated rather than leading to absolute confiscation. He contended that the penalty was unjustified as there was no deliberate attempt to misdeclare the import. Shri Mondal countered that the value limit of Rs. 50,000/- was sacred, and any excess required prior endorsement by the licensing authority. The appellants did not seek this endorsement, indicating a mala fide intention to circumvent the Policy. He argued that the entire transaction lacked good faith and justified the absolute confiscation and imposition of penalty. The Tribunal agreed with Shri Mondal, emphasizing that the Policy required importers to seek endorsement from the licensing authority if the value limit was exceeded. The appellants' failure to do so indicated an intention to bypass scrutiny. The Tribunal held that the excess value could not be condoned and that the entire import was unauthorized, justifying absolute confiscation and the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the absolute confiscation of the motor car and the imposition of the penalty. The appellants failed to establish their claim that the car was imported as a sample under para 146 of the Import Policy AM 1981-82, and their actions were found to lack good faith. The value limit of Rs. 50,000/- was deemed sacred, and the appellants' failure to seek prior endorsement from the licensing authority rendered the import unauthorized.
|
