9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dur Singh Gujral against penalty imposed on him by the adjudicating authority of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The brief facts of the case are that late Shri Satpal Singh father of Shri Inderpal Singh Gujral (the appellant herein), had imported a brand new Hummer H3 car from Thailand at a declared price of US $ 42,000 CIF through the bill of entry mentioned hereinabove. During the examination, the car was found as per declaration. Since the Type Approval Certificate/COP from the country of origin was not submitted as required under Import Licensing Notes on ITC (HS) classification, the car was confiscated with redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and personal penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is that the car is old and used car therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 is not available to the said vehicle. 6. Penalty on Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral was imposed for aiding and abetting and misdeclaration and illegal importation of car. 7. The ld. Counsel submits that the transaction value has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has suppressed the value of optional accessories, namely, power sliding glass sun roof, navigation package, which were not shown in the invoice of the car, therefore, the value of car is misdeclared. In his defence, he submits that at the time of clearance of the car, the same was inspected by the proper officer and as per the examination report, there is a clear finding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dervaluation was also supported on the basis of contemporaneous imports. The adjudicating authority has relied on the imports of those cars made from UK and presently in this case the car has been imported from South Africa, therefore, the same cannot be considered as identical goods as the same are to be imported from the very same country. Moreover, there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the said import is lowest among contemporaneous imports to adopt its value as assessable value. He further submits that the very same car was imported by M/s. Jindal Industries in the year 2010 on payment of customs duty of Rs. 21,48,419/- and the importer in the present case was paid customs duty of Rs. 19,38,965/- in the year 2008. In both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable and benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 is available to the appellants. 9. He further submits that penalty on Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral has been imposed on the ground that Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral has arranged the money to pay duty of the car by late Shri Satpal Singh. Giving lease or arranging for money for payment of duty does not constitute any offence for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, therefore, penalty on Shri Jang Bahadur Singh is to be set aside. 10. On the other hand the ld. AR reiterates the impugned order. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and perused the impugned order also. 12. In this case initially the vehicle was imported by late Shri Satpal Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car was imported by late Shri Satpal Singh, who is no more. Revenue is under the presumption that the navigation system was installed at the time of import of the car, as the same was found installed at the time of seizure of car. This is a presumption by DRI because there is an examination report available on records which shows that the car is new one having standard accessories. There may be another presumption that at the time of import there was no navigation system installed in the car and later on, late Shri Satpal Singh might have installed the navigation system in the car. In the absence of any concrete evidence produced by the Revenue at the time of importation of car that there was navigation system installed, in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the Oman Trading Company for some time thereafter it was imported to India. But the reason stated by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that as the car was left hand drive which was converted into right Hand drive. Therefore, the time gap is the time taken for the conversion from left hand drive to right hand drive only and the car was not registered before its importation. No evidence is produced by the Revenue that before importation, the car was registered. In the absence of any concrete evidence, it cannot be said the car is old and used, therefore, the allegation that the car is old and used is not sustainable. Accordingly the denial of benefit of notification No. 21/2002 is also set aside. 14. We find that penalty on Shri Jang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
