1996 (10) TMI 293 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty for non-compliance of Notification No. 258/90-Cus.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of duty for non-compliance of Notification No. 258/90-Cus.
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the demand of duty due to alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. The respondent imported a motor vehicle claiming duty exemption under the said notification, which required the importer to have traveled from Iraq or Kuwait in the motor vehicle before entering the Land Customs Station at Attari Road. However, it was alleged that the respondent had not traveled from Kuwait or Iraq but had brought the car from Jordan, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand amounting to Rs. 1,68,938/-. The respondent contended that he fulfilled all conditions of the notification as he had traveled from Kuwait to Amman and later to Attari Land Customs Station in India, leaving the car in Jordan temporarily due to war conditions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. conditions
The Tribunal analyzed the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990, which required the importer to produce evidence of registration in Kuwait or Iraq, travel from Iraq or Kuwait in the motor car before entering Attari, not parting with the car for 5 years, informing the Customs authorities of residence in India, and declaring no other car imported under the notification. The Tribunal found that the respondent had fulfilled the conditions as the car was registered in Kuwait, he traveled from Kuwait to Amman and then to Attari, and had resided in Kuwait before the specified date. The Tribunal noted that there was no condition in the notification that the journey could not be broken, and the respondent's actions did not violate any specific requirement of the notification.

Issue 3: Admissibility of duty exemption
After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) to release the car to the respondent, as it found no legal or factual infirmity in the order. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990, based on the fulfillment of the conditions specified in the notification, despite the temporary break in the journey from Kuwait to India via Jordan.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent based on the fulfillment of the conditions of the notification and the absence of any legal or factual deficiencies in the Collector (Appeals) decision.