2013 (11) TMI 387 - AT - Customs

Import of brand new vehicle or not - Exemption under notification no. 21/2002 CUS dated 1 March 2002 - Held that - Whether a vehicle is or is not new is a pure finding of fact. The facts which have been found by the Settlement Commission indicate that the car was in fact a new car which was transshipped from the manufacturer in Italy to the Ferrari dealer in the U.K. who sold the car to a dealer in the U.K. The Respondent purchased the car from the dealer in the U.K. The Settlement Commission has noted that the registration of the car in the U.K. was only to comply with the requirement of the licensing authorities in the U.K. who require registration even for the purposes of exportation. The car was not used in the U.K. The finding that the vehicle was a new motor vehicle is not perverse or contrary to the evidence - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Versus NOSHIRE MOODY 2012 (5) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order denying concessional customs duty.
2. Confiscation of the Ferrari car and imposition of penalties.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit for certain appellants.
4. Dispute over whether the imported car is new or old.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the impugned order denying the benefit of concessional customs duty claimed under a specific notification for the imported Ferrari car. The order also included confiscation of the car, imposition of penalties, and confirmation of differential duty and interest recovery.

2. The impugned order confiscated the Ferrari car, imposed penalties on various individuals involved, and confirmed the demand of differential duty and interest recovery. Penalties were imposed under different sections of the Customs Act, with varying amounts for each individual involved in the importation process.

3. Certain appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of the demands confirmed against them. The waiver was granted based on a previous order that granted waiver to other individuals involved in the importation process. The appeals of these appellants were taken up for final disposal without the requirement of pre-deposit.

4. The main issue in the case revolved around whether the imported Ferrari car was classified as new or old. The importer claimed the benefit of a specific notification for a new car, but subsequent investigation revealed that the car was 11 months old at the time of importation. The argument focused on the ownership and registration status of the car before export to India.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the transaction history of the car, highlighting that it was initially manufactured for a specific buyer who later decided not to purchase it. The car was then transferred to the appellants through a dealer, with payment routed through the original buyer. The Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence to classify the car as old based solely on the time elapsed since manufacture.

6. Citing relevant legal precedents and import licensing notes, the Tribunal concluded that the car should be considered new based on the absence of evidence regarding prior registration and use. The decision aligned with previous judgments and established practices in similar cases, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the key issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.