2016 (9) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - Import of car for use by the company - appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification No.4/97-2002 dated 31/03/2001 - car provisionally released on ITC Bond - Held that - it is found that the import of car is restricted. Anyone wishing to import a car has alternate route. The first route is to obtain a licence from the ministry of commerce and the 2nd route is to fulfill the conditions of Notification No.4/97-02. The appellant chose the second route and have failed to produce necessary certificate to avail the benefit of said notification. In these circumstances, the import of car is in violation of import export policy. Therefore, the impugned order rightly confiscated the car and imposed penalty. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Import of car under restricted policy, compliance with Notification No.4/97-2002, confiscation of car, penalty imposition

Import of Car under Restricted Policy:
The case involved M/s. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. importing a car for company use under a restricted import policy. The import of the car was subject to conditions specified in the import-export policy, requiring compliance with a license or public notice. The appellant failed to meet these conditions, leading to the provisional release of the car on ITC Bond pending compliance with Notification No.4/97-2002 issued by the Department of Commerce. However, the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the notification, resulting in the confiscation of the car and the option to redeem it upon payment of a fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

Compliance with Notification No.4/97-2002:
The appellant argued that the conditions under Notification No.4/97-2002, specifically related to motor vehicle importation, were not applicable to them as they were intended for manufacturers of motor vehicles, not individual importers for personal use. The appellant highlighted the requirements outlined in the notification, emphasizing that these conditions were tailored for vehicle manufacturers importing prototypes. Additionally, the appellant referred to Notification No.31/97-2002, which provided exemptions for specific categories of vehicle imports, further supporting their argument that there was no violation of the import policy.

Confiscation of Car and Penalty Imposition:
The Revenue contended that the import of the car was clearly restricted under the import-export policy, and the appellant had the option to either obtain a license from the Ministry of Commerce or comply with the conditions of Notification No.4/97-2002. By choosing the latter route and failing to produce the necessary certificate, the appellant violated the import policy, leading to the confiscation of the car. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both parties and concluded that the appellant's failure to comply with the import conditions justified the confiscation of the car and the imposition of a penalty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds of non-compliance with the import policy and failure to meet the necessary requirements.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the import of a car under a restricted policy, the compliance requirements of Notification No.4/97-2002, the confiscation of the car, and the imposition of a penalty, providing a detailed overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.