9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ennai involving duty of Rs. 8,44,291/- for import of a Toyota car. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant filed a bill of entry No. 808564 dated 20-5-2005 for a car describing it as used Toyota Prado Chassis No. KZJ95 0140178 . However, Chennai Customs officials conducted investigation which revealed misuse of the benefit of Transfer of Residence claim so as to evade payment of appropriate Customs duty and circumvention of the licencing conditions with regard to import of used cars by mis-declaring the model of the car and its value on the basis of forged/fabricated invoices. The applicant had merely lent his name and passport particulars for extending the benefit of transfer of residence for importation of car for a considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was detained from 12-9-2005, which was converted into seizure on 3-3-2006. The detention date, i.e. 12-9-2006 should be taken as an effective date for seizure since the car was in the possession of the department. He also emphasized that in this case investigation has been completed and SCN has also been issued on the basis of which the applicant has submitted this application for settlement which may be admitted and any denial of this would cause avoidable demurrage and deterioration of the car. In support of his plea, he relied on the decision of the Settlement Commission of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Indulla Babu Rao, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 534 (Sett. Comm.). The Revenue representative objected to the admission of the case and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue and the applicant, the Bench asked both the Advocate and the Revenue to make final submissions in this regard. As regards the release of the car to its owner raised by the Revenue representative the Bench observed that the proposal for confiscation of the car has been addressed to main noticee (applicant), in the SCN, whereas other co-noticees in the SCN have been addressed to reply with reference to the proposal for penal action only. Section 125 of the Act also provides that where the owner of the goods is not known, the person from whose custody such goods have been seized, the goods can be cleared to him on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant agreed to consider his submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty as mentioned in the SCN, by the applicant and his right to settle his case as referred to in the said SCN cannot be denied with reference to the position of co-noticees to whom only proposal for penal action has been proposed in the said SCN. Nevertheless, Revenue interest will be safeguarded by recovery of full duty, as demanded in the SCN as well as imposition of fine and penalty. It is felt that appropriate quantum of fine and penalty should be imposed in the facts and circumstances of this case so as to discourage any future attempt for evasion of duty on import of car in a manner like this. As regards interest, the SCN itself does not propose any interest and the Bench does not find any justification for charging interest in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
