9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and filed Bill of Entry No. 960641 dated 10.2.2006 at Chennai Customs House and claimed exemption under Notification No. 97/2004 dated 17.9.2004 using EPCG licence No. 53300009531/3/11/00 dated 23.12.2005 issued by JDGFT, Trivandrum. The applicant registered the car in the name of the Managing Director of the company. It was not registered as a tourist vehicle as specified in the EPCG licence. Therefore, the customs officers conducted investigations and seized the vehicle which was found at the residence of the Managing Director of the appellant company. So the Department took a view that they had contravened Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for having not complied with post-import conditions for availing exemption under Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, releasing it on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs, demanding duty payable to the extent of Rs.28,32,949/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the company and Rs. One lakh on the Managing Director. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal along with a stay petitions for admitting the appeal without any pre-deposit. 2. Arguing for the applicant, the learned counsel submits that the only matter in which they have not complied with the regulations is that the car was not registered as a tourist taxi within six months from the date of import. He submits that there were many importers who were also similarly placed and finally DGFT issued Policy Circular No.7/08 dated 7.5.2008, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d back to the adjudicating authority to verify whether any contravention of law persists warranting confiscation, redemption fine, demand of duty and penalty. He also submits that the export obligation has been fulfilled subsequent to the registration of the car as a tourist taxi which factor has not been examined by the adjudicating authority. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant relies on the following decisions:- (a) Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2006 (203) ELT 202 (Del.) (b) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Air Travel Bureau Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 78 (Del.) (c) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kumarakom Lake Resorts 2011 (268) ELT 153 (Ker.). 5. He submits that the first two decisions of the Delhi High Court accepts the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the question before us is whether the seizure of the goods as on the date of seizure is legally valid and the adjudication proceedings, consequent thereon, is sustainable. The events after seizure may not be strictly relevant in deciding the matter. The decisions of the Tribunal in this matter are exactly on the same footing whereas the decision of the Delhi High Court do not appear to be with reference to licenses having specific condition that the car should be registered as taxis and the cars having not been not registered so within the prescribed time limit. The observation of Hon. Kerala High Court in the case of Kumarakom Resorts is only to the extent that even if the export earnings by use of the car while the car was not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
