Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1994 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1994 (2) TMI 64 - HC - Customs

Issues:
- Interpretation of conditions for importing a car into India
- Confiscation of car and imposition of penalty by the Collector

Interpretation of conditions for importing a car into India:
The petitioner, an Indian national residing abroad, imported a Mercedes Benz car into India. The condition for importation required the car to be in the use of the importer for more than a year prior to their return to India. The petitioner had purchased and registered the car in the UK but had not been physically present in England for more than 10 days in the year preceding their return to India. The Collector confiscated the car and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 4 lac based on this interpretation. The court held that the Collector's order was manifestly erroneous in law. The court interpreted "use" to mean that the car continues to be in the use of the owner even if the owner is not physically present in the car, as long as the owner has absolute ownership and control over the car. The court emphasized that the owner's intention regarding the use of the car is crucial in determining its continued use.

Confiscation of car and imposition of penalty by the Collector:
The court found the Collector's order to be harsh and oppressive. It quashed the Collector's order dated 31-1-1994 and issued a Rule Absolute in the nature of Certiorari. The court directed the respondents to unconditionally return the car to the petitioner within a fortnight. A Rule absolute in the form of Mandamus was also issued for the same. Additionally, the Collector was instructed to issue a detention certificate to the petitioner to avoid any demurrage or detention charges. The court refused to stay the operation of its order. All parties were directed to act on a signed copy of the order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates