9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The car has been confiscated and the same has been allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/-. There is a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellant, besides penalties on other parties whose appeals are not listed today. The allegation against the appellant is that Shri D. Rajkumar is culpable under Section 112(b) for having acquired the goods imported in contravention of law. The main allegation is against Shri Ramer Velu for having submitted fabricated documents and false declarations to the Customs Department, by giving fictitious addresses and various other acts of omission and commission listed in the Show Cause Notice. The other persons viz. Shri A. Ratnam and Shri Rajinder Singh alias Baby Singh have been imposed pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The statement of other persons were also recorded and it was alleged in the Show Cause Notice that :- (i) Shri Ramar Velu had lent his passport for making the import and is not the importer, thus violating the provisions of Public Notice No. 3/97, dated 31-3-1997; (ii) The Export Certificate produced by the importer is fabricated; and (iii) That the Public Notice No. 3/97, dated 31-3-97 is not fulfilled, the import is unauthorised and the vehicle is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been alleged that the vehicle has not been in the use of the importer for a year since the vehicle entered UAE only on 19-5-1997 and it was re-exported to India on 28-6-1997. The authorities have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Final Order Nos. 690 to 694/2004 dated 30-3-2004 [2004 (175) E.L.T. 470 (T)]. He submitted that the valuation has been arrived at after getting the letter from the Toyota Trusho Corporation which has indicated the correct price. 6.The learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of Kalinga Gases v. CC, Lucknow - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 252 (Tri. - Del.), it has been held that Show Cause Notice cannot be issued to reopen the assessments on the ground of misdeclaration in the Bill of entry. He also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of UOI Others v. Popular Dyechem - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 63 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that once the goods have been cleared by the Customs Authorities, after physical verification and check up un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olomon Jeyapandian and in the case of Mudra Offset (cited supra), the Tribunal has examined all the judgments including the Apex Court judgment and held that the goods, when they are confiscable for any violation, then the goods can be seized and redemption fine and penalty can be imposed, despite the plea of bona fide belief held by the importer. In view of these judgments and also the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Western Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.), we are of the considered opinion that the appellant does not have a strong case in the matter. The valuation has been arrived at only after getting the value of the vehicle from the manufacturer i.e. Toyota Trusho Corporation, Japan. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
