9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Mohamed Ebrahim Mahmood Haji - the importer, imported one BMW car under Transfer of Residence scheme. At the time of initial import it was found the Model Number was not correctly declared and the car was not in the possession of the importer for required period of one year. The said car was therefore confiscated and redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3.25 lakhs. After release of the car, the importer sold the car to one Shri Bimal Natwarlal Mehta, the first possessor who in turn sold the car to Shri Maqsood Mahmood Ali, the 2nd possessor and the present appellant before me. Later on, this car was handed over to the 3rd possessor Shri Nadeem Gubitra who also arranged a deal for a transaction of the car to Shri Maqsood Mahmood A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a period of two years of its import knowingly. 4. Through written submission, the appellants submits that the car was confiscated at the time of its import for violation of Transfer of Residence Policy and at that time redemption fine was paid and penalties were paid by the importer. Hence, they were not known to the conditions of "no sale" within two years. The penalties imposed on the appellants are only against the violation of this clause. It is submitted that they are not coming into the ambit of Transfer of Residence Policy, the penalties cannot be imposed. To support the contention, the learned Advocate relied on the decision of Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. CC, Cochin - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. - Bang.) wherein it was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the car is liable to be confiscated and the Commissioner is rightly imposed the penalties on the appellants who dealt with the car knowingly that the car has been imported by the importer under Transfer of Residence Scheme and the car cannot be transferred within two years of its import. With regard to the decision cited by the learned Advocate, he submitted that the interpretation of law in the cited decision is not correct and these decisions cannot be relied upon. 5.1 The DR also filed written submission and the same has been taken on record and considered. The DR has also contended that the importer had given the affidavit at the time of importer that the importer will not part with the impugned car for two years which is a cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government, subject to the condition that the importer is an established institution and is functioning for the common benefit of the community and subject further to production of necessary clearance under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. (h) Honorary Consuls of Foreign Countries on the recommendations of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India; (i) Journalists/Correspondents of foreign news agencies having accredition certificate with the Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. However, these imports shall be subject to the condition that, the vehicle should have right hand steering and controls (applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar for one year abroad before coming to India. Hence, the importer is not covered by the Condition No. 3 of the Import Licensing Note. When the importer is not coming under this condition No. 3, the condition of post import that the vehicle shall not be sold for two years is applicable on the importer. The importer is therefore can sell the car after its import as the importer has already paid the redemption fine and penalty for violation of the condition of importing the car without licence. Hence the decision of Narayan Nambiar Meloth (supra) cited by the learned Advocate are squarely applicable to this case and in that case the Tribunal has rightly observed that "On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that on account of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
