9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing authorities in the U.K. who require registration even for the purposes of exportation. The car was not used in the U.K. The finding that the vehicle was a new motor vehicle is not perverse or contrary to the evidence - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Versus NOSHIRE MOODY [2012 (5) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favor of assessee. - C/894-896/2012 and C/988-989/2012 - Final Order Nos. A/538-542/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 5-3-2013 - Shri Ashok Jindal and S.K. Gaule, JJ. Shri P.A. Augustian and S.N. Kantawala, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri V.C. Khole, D.C. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant have challenged the impugned order which is as under : 6.1. On the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forthwith; 6.1.5 6.1.6 I impose a penalty of ₹ 64,03,603/- (Rupees sixty four lakhs three thousand six hundred three only) on Shri Lorenzo Bestonso under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.1.7 I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Alberto Bestonso under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.1.8 I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on Shri Ravindra Mansukh under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.1.9 I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each on Shri Praful Manjrekar and Shri Venugopal Nair, Directors of M/s. Vegha Shipping Transport P. Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.1.10 Penalty under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The factual matrix of the case is that the Ferrari car is manufactured only against specific order from the clients and it is manufactured as per the modification suggested by its customers. The Ferrari car was initially booked by M/s. Going Rich Ltd., Singapore with the authorised dealer of the manufacturer M/s. Italian Motors Sales Service. Unfortunately, when the vehicle was ready, M/s. Going Rich Ltd. the buyer was not interested to purchase it and they expressed their willingness to dispose the car by the dealer. The dealer agreed to and found out the appellants as another buyer. The vehicle was in display with the authorised dealer for sale and the importer and his brother decided to purchase the said car. Thereafter they imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in display with the dealer to find out a prospective buyer. As per the finding of the adjudicating authority, if a high segment brand new car like Ferrari manufactured by a car manufacturer is kept in showroom of the authorised dealer of the buyer for 11 months, it will become a used car. Such presumption is unsustainable as it is not supported by any cogent evidence. 7. For classification of the car, the sole reason to allege that car as used car that it was initially booked by M/s. Going Rich Ltd. with the car dealer and thereafter it was purchased by the importer. Considering such transaction as sale of car it is alleged that it is a used car. There is no allegation that it was in use by anyone before its export or that it was registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R reiterates the impugned order and submitted that as the car was purchased by M/s. Going Rich Ltd. and which as transferred to the appellant after 11 months, therefore car is an old car. Therefore benefit of Notification is not available to the appellants. 11. Heard the parties. 12. In this case issue is whether the car is a new one or an old car. From the factual matrix, it is clear that initially this car was manufactured by Ferrari for M/s. Going Rich Ltd. located in Singapore but before sale of the car they were not interested in buying the car, therefore the car was sent by the manufacturer directly to the dealer M/s. Italian Motors Sales service. These facts are not in dispute. The dealer thereafter transferred the car to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
