1991 (2) TMI 252 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of a car under transfer of residence rule.
2. Interpretation of Import Policy 1988-91 and subsequent amendments.
3. Confiscation of car under Section 111(d) and imposition of fines.
4. Justification of penalties imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs.
5. Applicability of relevant legal precedents in determining penalties.

Analysis:

1. The appeal pertains to the import of a new BMW car by an Indian national settled in the U.K. since 1968, intending to transfer residence to India under the transfer of residence rule as per Import Policy 1988-91. The appellant arrived in India on 6th June 1990 and filed a Bill of Entry for the car's clearance.

2. The appellant's representative argued that the Policy originally allowed the import, but subsequent amendments required a two-year stay in England and one-year use of the car. The appellant purchased the car before the new Policy's enforcement on 1-4-1990, claiming bona fide intentions. The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision and the car's value to contest the fines imposed.

3. The Customs authorities confiscated the car under Section 111(d) but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant sought release on a token fine or re-exportation. The appellant's representative emphasized the adjudicating officer's mention of a "token" penalty, arguing for a nominal penalty due to the lack of mala fides.

4. The respondents contended that the appellant did not meet the new Policy's requirements, as the car was not in use for a year in England, and the appellant failed to obtain the necessary Customs Clearance Permit (CCP). The respondents argued that the appellant's actions post-Policy announcement were not bona fide, citing legal precedents to justify the penalties imposed.

5. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, acknowledging the appellant's purchase before the new Policy's enforcement. While the appellant's actions were deemed a violation, some leniency was warranted. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25,000, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of penalty discretion.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with modifications to the fines imposed, considering the appellant's circumstances and the need for proportionate penalties.