9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J.]. - This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12-1-2009 [2009 (245) E.L.T. 609 (Tri.-Bang.)] of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. C/303/2008 filed by the appellant. As per the order under appeal, the proceedings of the authorities below, confiscating the vehicle that was sought to be imported by the appellant and imposing penalty on him have been upheld. The appellant had made a belated request for re-export of the vehicle, which also has been disallowed by the Tribunal, without any justification whatsoever, it is contended. The appeal is filed in the following facts and circumstances. 2. The appellant had been working in the Gulf countries for about eight years. Thereafter, he has returned to India. At the time of his return to India he wanted to import a Range Rover Car. He entrusted M/s. Al Wafrah Used Cars, Sharjah to arrange the shipment of a Range Rover Car for him. The car offered by them was a 1998 model Range Cover County. The car was imported for the personal use of the appellant. As per the rules applicable, an NRI is entitled to import one used car under the Transfer of Residence sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received a bonus of 68,000 dirhams from his employer, utilising which he decided to buy a car. For the purpose, he went with his cousin Rafique to M/s. Al Wafrah Used Car centre, saw different models of vehicles and selected a Range Rover of 1998 model which was offered to him for USD 17,500. He paid the money in cash three days before returning to India on the assurance of M/s. Al wafrah that they would ship the vehicle from Sharjah within four months. He entrusted his cousin to follow up the matter in Dubai. The documents for clearing the vehicle were to be sent to Messrs. Cargo Clear International for clearance. On receiving information from his cousin, he had contacted the said agents and had signed some papers. According to him he had not seen the vehicle at any time. 5. The vehicle was examined in detail on 24-1-2006 under a mahazar in the presence of the appellant, the representatives of the agent and two independent witnesses. The examination showed that the vehicle was Range Rover Vogue, as seen from the Legend on the rear portion of the vehicle and many of its parts had time clocks which showed the year of manufacture to be 2001/2002. Thereafter, a further statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be allowed to re-export the car to Dubai. After hearing the appellant's counsel, an order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs confiscating the vehicle under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, the appellant was given an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also imposed. 7. The appellant challenged the said order evidenced herein by Annexure E in Customs Appeal No. 279/2006 before the CESTAT. Before the Tribunal the appellant contended that various documents relied on by the authorities while passing Annexure E order had not been given to him and that he had obtained data/information from the manufacturer of the vehicle which showed that the same was manufactured in 1998. Since the said documents were received by him only after Annexure E order, he requested for an opportunity to place them before the authority and sought for a reconsideration of the entire issue on the basis of the said additional documents also. The request was allowed by the Tribunal as per Annexure J, the order of confiscation was set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle for the first time. Therefore, the mistake is contended to be unintentional and not capable of attracting the penal action initiated against him. According to him, the valuation adopted by the authorities is wrong and excessive since according to him a 2002 model Range Rover VOGUE car costs much less. According to him even a brand new Range Rover has been allowed to be imported at a lesser value. Since there was no deliberate attempt at evasion of customs duty, and since there was no deliberate misdeclaration of the vehicle, the car was not liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. Therefore he prays for setting aside the order appealed against at any rate, according to him, there is no justification for not permitting him to re-export the car to Dubai. 12. On a careful perusal of the orders of the Commissioner of Customs evidenced herein by Annexure (L) and that of the CESTAT evidenced herein by Annexure (N), it is evident that the said authorities have elaborately considered the contentions of the appellant. They have also considered each and every item of evidence and each of the incriminating circumstances available against the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
