9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant is one of the noticees in the said SCN. Incidentally, the copy of the SCN was handed over by the Revenue to the Bench and the applicant on 27-2-2009 when the hearing took place in this case. 2.1 Brief facts of the case as given in the settlement application are that one Shri Harchand Singh imported a used Toyota Land Cruiser Car under Transfer of Residence Rules vide Bill of Entry bearing Thokka No. 00234, dated 17-3-2005. The said Bill of Entry was assessed by Customs Authorities at CFS, POWCOWPL, Ludhiana and the said car was allowed to be cleared on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 8,02,326/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 23-3-2005. According to the applicant, Shri Shamsher Kalara and Shri Amit from Shammi Motors having their office at B-12/9, Connaught Place, New Delhi had approached the applicant saying that one Shri Harchand Singh who had come from Dubai was in dire need of money and wanted to raise a loan on the said car. As he himself was unable to raise a loan on the said car, S/Shri Shamsher Kalra and Amit requested the applicant to become co-borrower of the car along with Shri Harchand Singh. Since Mr. Shamsher Kalra was known to the applicant and was operating from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan sanctioned for imported luxury vehicles were called from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. Scrutiny of documents revealed that Shri Sunil Godhwani, who is now the applicant, had been in possession of the impugned vehicle which was imported under the provisions of the Transfer of Residence Scheme by one Shri Harchand Singh vide Bill of Entry No. 234, dated 17-3-2005 at ICD, Ludhiana. The year of manufacture of the said car was found to be declared as 1998 in the said documents. Investigations revealed that the model code and year of manufacture of the subject vehicle were mis-declared to the Custom authorities at the time of import in order to suppress the actual value and to claim higher depreciation thereby evading duty. During investigations, DRI recorded the statements of the applicant and other concerned persons. DRI had seized the said car on 20-4-2007 and it was provisionally released to the applicant. As per SCN (supra), the applicant in his statement recorded before DRI officers had stated that though he was not involved in the import of the vehicle, he was willing to pay the differential duty. On completion of investigation, the SCN (supra) dated 25-2-2009 has been issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Chairman vide Order No. 141/CUS/08-S.C. (PB) dated 18-12-2008. 6. The case was taken up for final hearing on 27-2-2009 when the applicant was represented by Shri Sujay N. Kantawala, Advocate and Shri Yogesh M. Rohira, Advocate. Revenue was represented by Smt. Sanyogita Misra, SIO, DRI, Mumbai. 7. During the hearing, the ld. Advocate Shri Kantawala briefly narrated the facts of the case. He submitted that SCN in the case has been issued now. The applicant from whose possession the car was seized by DRI and to whom the car was provisionally released and who for all practical purposes has stepped in to the shoes of the importer admits the entire duty liability of Rs. 15,19,833/- as now demanded in the SCN as well as the interest payable thereon. He is also not challenging the valuation of the vehicle as proposed by the DRI. In fact, the applicant had deposited the amount of Rs. 14,63,806/- as early as 20-4-2007 which was then tentatively indicated by the DRI as the differential amount of duty. Applicant also paid Rs. 3,91,540/- as interest amount on 14-11-2008. The applicant had thus co-operated with the investigation of the case. Applicant is willing to pay the balance amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine were imposable but she leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 9. The Bench has considered the records placed before it as well as oral submissions made by the two sides during the course of hearing. Bench notes that applicant has made a full and true disclosure of the duty liability and is also willing to pay the balance amount of duty and interest becoming payable as per the SCN now issued. Applicant has also co-operated in the proceedings before the Commission. Coming to the request for immunities, Bench notes that in the case of Shri Deep Jaitly, the Addl. Bench of Settlement Commission at Mumbai had granted immunity from penalty only to one of the five applicants on the ground that he in his enthusiasm to acquire imported vehicle had been dupted by other applicants. Further, in the case of Shri Punueet Bhatia, the applicant was found to be a bona fide buyer of the imported vehicle and he too was reportedly duped. Facts of the case now before the Bench are not exactly similar. The applicant in this case was co-borrower and this is how he circumvented the two years ban on sale of the car and took the car into his possession and use. Bench finds it difficult to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in lieu of confiscation of the seized vehicle in terms of Bond within 15 days of receipt of this Order under intimation to the Commission and the Revenue. Penalty : In the facts and circumstances of case, Bench imposes a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on the Applicant under the provisions invoked in the SCN. The applicant is directed to deposit the said amount of penalty within 15 days of receipt of this Order under intimation to the Commission and the Revenue. In the event of the applicant failing to pay them within the stipulated time, Bench also grants liberty to the Revenue to enforce and encash the Bank Guarantee to realize the amounts of duty, interest, fine and penalty ordered to be paid under this Order. Revenue shall discharge the Bank Guarantee to the extent necessary after dues under this Order stand realized and would also cancel the Bond accordingly. Prosecution : Subject to payment of all dues/amounts ordered to be paid under the Order, immunity from prosecution is granted to the applicant under the Act as far as this case is concerned. 11. The above immunities are granted un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
