9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scovered that the aforesaid motor cycle was imported by Mr. Mohaiddin M. Abdul Rahid who gave it to Mr. Ramakant Shanbagh for selling in market so it was displayed in the show room of M/s. Gemini Motors from where the motor cycle was seized and on adjudication it was confiscated on the ground that it was imported without any valid duty payment documents. Penalty was also imposed on the importer i.e. Abdul Rashid, Shri Jagjit Singh Bhavanani owner of Gemini Motors show room and on Mr. Sunil Bhatia and Mr. Ramakant Shanbagh, who dealt with the motor cycles. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, all the four appellant have filed the present appeals. 3.At the time of personal hearing, the Counsel of the appellant stated that it was due to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-2003 and as per the bill of entry chassis no. of the motor cycle was LWOXCNLC 620062748, but the chassis no. on the motor cycle was found to be as LWOXCNL 620062748. It further says that as per inspection report, it bears Chassis No. LWOXCNCC 620062748 and Engine No. LW OXCNCC 6200627 48 but it is not mention which inspection report the original authority is mentioning. If it is their own inspection report, then it appears to be faulty because chassis no. and engine no. of the motor cycle cannot be same further chasis no. under this inspection report is different then the chasis no. found on the motor cycle by punchas. If the departments own report gives different chasis no., then it can be very-well presumed that similar error must have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be presumed the motor cycle seized and confiscated by the Deptt. was imported against the aforesaid bill of entry as engine no. other details tallies. In view of this, I tend to agree with the counsel of the appellant that the customs Deptt. had not properly verified the chassis no. given in the bill of entry with the motor cycle at the time of importation. It is not the case of the Deptt. that bill of entry vide which the aforesaid motor cycle was said to have been imported is fictitious. Along with the bill of entry copy of the passport of the importer as well as affidavit that he will not sell the motor cycle within 2 years were also found with the Customs and the motor cycle is still in the name of importer. All these facts goes in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the other persons on other than the importer on whom penalty was imposed, such as Mr. Jagjit Singh Bhavnani, Sunil Bhatia and Ramakant Shanbagh who dealt with the motor cycle during the preparation for sale, I find that they have been penalised without any application of mind and without proving that they had any knowledge about the illegal import or no sale condition of the notified. From the facts of the case as discussed above it is proved that motor cycle was legally imported so no penalty is liable to be imposed on any person who dealt the motor cycle in any manner after import as the sale of motor cycle was not effected. 7.It was the contention of the appellant also that motorcycle is non-notified goods, therefore, burden i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
