9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence got an information that luxury motor vehicles are being imported into India under Transfer of Residence Scheme by misdeclaring the year of manufacture. In pursuant to that intelligence, it was noticed that the appellant-M/s. Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. has obtained a loan against one Toyota Land Cruiser. Therefore, enquires were initiated and statements were recorded and it was found that the vehicle was manufactured in the year February 2000. It was revealed in the investigation that the model No. was not as per Bill of Entry filed by the importer, namely Shri Ayoob Hamid Ebrahim. It was also found that car was imported by Shri Ayoob Hamid Ebrahim in the year 2004 under the Transfer of Residenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he also relied on the decisions in the case of Five Star Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 168 (Tri. - Mumbai), and Nalin Choksey v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 246 (Tri. Bang.). 4. On the other hand, the learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and submitted that the appellants took possession of the car immediately after the importation and in the statements recorded during the investigation, the appellants themselves have admitted that the possession of the car has been taken by them from the importer under a lease agreement. They have also arranged loan for the said vehicle and only got the car transferred after two years on pretext that the purchase of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are not relevant to the facts of this case. Therefore, the car is liable to be confiscated. With regard to the redemption fine, I find that in the impugned order redemption fine has been imposed for violation of Section 111(o) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, the provision of Section 111(m) has not been violated by the appellants. The provision of Section 111(m) has been violated by the importer, Shri Ayoob Hamid Ebrahim by mis-declaring the model of car. Therefore, I reduce the redemption fine to 2.5 lakhs, as the appellants have violated the provision of Section 111(o) and they are liable to be penalised. Accordingly, penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority are confirmed. 7. With these observations, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
