2016 (12) TMI 264 - AT - Customs

Whether the confiscation of the car which was imported in violation of Transfer of Residence Rules is correct or otherwise and whether Mr. Firoz Nadiadwala who purchased the car is liable to pay redemption fine or otherwise and whether Mr. Aslam Khan penalised by the adjudicating authority has been correctly done or otherwise? - Held that - There is no rebuttal from the concerned individual as to the fact Various statements which have been recorded by the authorities clearly show that there was some manipulation done on the documents in order to circumvent the provisions of cars of specific nature. We do not find any clearly the manipulation by the importer. Hence we hold hold that that adjudicating authority was correct in ordering the confiscation of the car i.e. Mercedez Benz S 280 car bearing chassis no. WDB 1400282A83147 and engine no. 10494422013118. At the same time we find that the adjudicating authority has given an option of redeeming the said car to Mr. Firoz Nadiadwala on payment of fine of 10 lakhs. In our considered view the fine imposed by the adjudicating authority of 10 lakhs seems to be excessive considering the fact that Mrs Firoz Nadiadwala was not a party to any of the manipulation and on the contrary was a victim of manipulation done by other individual. Keeping all these things in mind we hold that the ends of justice will be met if the redemption fine is reduced from 10 lakhs to 5 lakhs. As regards the penalty on Mr. Asham Khan under the provisions of Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act 1962 we find that the role attributable to Mr. Aslam Khan is only purchasing of the car and arranging the import through various individual and clearance by customs. It is on record that Mr. Aslam Khan was not in India during the relevant time and purchased the car in Dubai. Keeping in mind the factual position in our view the adjudicating authority has erred in Imposing penalty of 6 lakhs under the provisions of section 112 of the Customs Act 1962. In our view such penalty is excessive for the role which has been attributed to him. Accordingly we reduce the penalty from 6 lakhs to 25, 000/- Appeals disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee (as regards quantum of fine and penalty).

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of imported car, liability of the purchaser for redemption fine, penalty imposed on individual for customs violation.

Confiscation of Imported Car:
The issue revolved around the confiscation of a car imported in violation of Transfer of Residence Rules. The Tribunal found that the car, a Mercedez Benz S 280, was liable for confiscation due to manipulation in the year of manufacture. The adjudicating authority correctly ordered the confiscation as there was evidence of manipulation to circumvent regulations. However, the Tribunal deemed the redemption fine of ?10 lakhs excessive and reduced it to ?5 lakhs, considering the purchaser was not involved in the manipulation.

Liability of Purchaser for Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the purchaser, Mr. Firoz Nadiadwala, should pay the redemption fine. While upholding the confiscation of the car, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine imposed on Mr. Nadiadwala from ?10 lakhs to ?5 lakhs. This decision was based on the finding that Mr. Nadiadwala was not complicit in the manipulation but rather a victim of it, leading to a more equitable outcome in the interest of justice.

Penalty Imposed on Individual for Customs Violation:
Regarding the penalty imposed on Mr. Aslam Khan under the Customs Act, the Tribunal noted that his role was limited to purchasing and arranging the import of the car through intermediaries. Considering that Mr. Khan was not in India during the relevant period and purchased the car in Dubai, the Tribunal deemed the penalty of ?6 lakhs excessive. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to ?25,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision aimed to align the penalty with the level of involvement attributed to Mr. Khan, ensuring a fair and proportionate outcome.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals with modifications to the fines and penalties, emphasizing a balance between upholding customs regulations and ensuring fairness in individual liabilities.