9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars after importation thereof during stay in India - Tribunal suffers from non-application of mind since the Tribunal directed release of vehicle after collection of duty assessed thereon forgetting the fact that as per the public notice, payment of full duty was a condition precedent and that the duty was duly paid by the importer – Order unsustainable - 7 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2010 - V.C. Daga and R.M. Savant, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.S. Jetly, for the Appellant. Shri S.N. Kantawala, Amicus Curiae, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : V.C. Daga, J.]. - This appeal, filed by the appellant- Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("Act" for short) against the order dated 7th July, 2004 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs duty by the following categories of importers : (a) Individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years; continuous stay abroad; (b) (i) ….. ….. ….. 3. ….. ….. ….. ….. 4. ….. ….. ….. ….." 3. On verification of the documents along with bill of entry, the Customs found that initial registration of the vehicle was in the month of November, 1996; whereas cancellation thereof was on 14th November, 2000 by Kanto Transportation Bureau, Japan. The Customs, finding import of the car contrary to the public notice dated 31st March, 2000, recorded statement of the respondent under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public notice and/or terms thereof and that importation of the said vehicle was prohibited as such it was held to be liable for confiscation under 111(d), and also under Section 111(o) of the Act for violation of the condition of post-importation. That is how the vehicle was absolutely confiscated and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the respondent and Rs. 50,000/- on one Sujit Sattam, CHA under Section 112(a) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order-in-original, appeal was preferred by the respondent. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide his order dated 16th March, 2004, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order-in-original. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order-in-appeal, the respondent filed second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of full customs duty by the categories of importers mentioned therein. One of such categories, extracted hereinabove, is of individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad. Such person is entitled to import only one vehicle with NO SALE condition of two years to be endorsed by the Customs Authorities on the passport/registration documents at the time of import and by the Regional Transport Authorities when such vehicle is presented for registration in India. 11. The aforesaid condition that no person shall be entitled to sell the vehicle imported while coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad is pregnant with the condition that such person must b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city of Japan. The passenger Shri Ganji Mallaiah before that, had already arrived in India on 10-10-2000 and therefore there was no question of him buying the car from a Japanese National settled in Japan while he worked in U.A.E. as a Carpenter on labour visa." 12. The aforesaid well considered findings were sought to be set aside by the Tribunal holding that it was not necessary for the importer to prove his ownership or title to the vehicle during his stay abroad and that he need not be the owner of the vehicle for next two years after importation thereof during is stay in India. The view taken by the Tribunal is absolutely perverse. The Tribunal could not have taken such a perverse view running contrary to the public policy lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
