9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention memo issued by Superintendent of Central Excise regarding an imported car's Cubic Capacity misdeclaration and Customs duty evasion. Analysis: The case involves a Writ Petition challenging a detention memo issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding an imported car's Cubic Capacity misdeclaration and Customs duty evasion. The petitioner, M/s. Amrutha Hotels (P) Ltd., purchased an Audi-80 car with a declared Cubic Capacity of 1595 C.C., which was later found to be 1781/1800 C.C. The detention memo alleged that the car was imported and cleared through Customs by misdeclaration, resulting in evasion of Customs duty. The respondents argued that the importer suppressed the actual Cubic Capacity and value of the car, leading to duty evasion. The detention order was based on Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, constituting smuggling. The petitioner contended that the assessment of duty had become final, and the authorities had no power to detain the car under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser, unaware of any misdeclaration, and argued against confiscation or penalties under the Act. The counsel argued that under Section 112, only those who knowingly acquire goods liable for confiscation are penalized, excluding bona fide purchasers. Additionally, the counsel contended that Section 124 of the Act requires notice to the owner or person aware of confiscation liability, which does not extend to bona fide purchasers. The respondents maintained that the detention was justified due to the Cubic Capacity misdeclaration and duty evasion, allowing for detention pending re-assessment under Section 110 of the Act. The High Court held that the detention order was set aside as the notice under Section 124(a) was not issued within six months, preserving the finality of the assessment order. The Court emphasized that once an order under Section 47 clearing goods for home consumption becomes final, any subsequent discovery of misdeclaration requires recourse to Section 28 within six months or Section 129DA within five years. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition without costs, allowing the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 28 or 129DA if advised, with the petitioner's undertaking to retain possession of the vehicle until proceedings conclude. The Editor's comments highlighted the absence of utilizing Section 129DA, which could have altered the case's outcome, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions in legal proceedings.
|
