9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of car through Customs but was involved to the extent of deferred sale of the vehicle on Commission basis. Held That:- Condition under Transfer of Residence Scheme which places restriction of 2 years have been violated as sale consideration of car was paid and delivery taken by buyer, Roshan Somjee, before expiry of two years - Helping in identification of willing buyer and some financial arrangement does not mean appellant has venially violated the provisions – Penalty thus imposed is excessive and reduced – Decided partially in favour of appellant. - Appeal No. C/552/11 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) For the Petitioner : Mr S P Mathew, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M S Reddy, Dy Commr (AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Mr. Shaybaz Sheikh, who was a car broker in Pune, stated that he had a customer named Shri Roshan Somjee who is interested in purchasing the car. After negotiations deal was finalized at ₹ 26 lakhs which was paid by the buyer. 3. SCN was issued and it was alleged that appellant being a broker in imported cars and having through knowledge about the import conditions of vehicles, laws governing import of cars under T.R. and the mandatory post import conditions, appellant was actually involved in selling the car to Shri Roshan Somjee despite knowing the fact that vehicle imported under T.R. scheme cannot be sold for the period of two years and by this Act of appellant goods or car is liable for confiscation under Sec. 111(o) of Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been dealt with said car knowing that the same is liable for confiscation. Finding of master minding, the import and abetting was not upheld. Penalty was not levied as per Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 4.5 Further it is stated that appellant was not involved in the clearance of car through Customs on payments of duty. He was also not associated in registration of the subject vehicle and appellant's involvement was only to the extent of deferred sale of the vehicle on Commission basis that too when it was brought for such sale. Appellant was not even aware of the fact that it was mis-declared at time of Customs clearance. Hence the appellant cannot be made liable for penalty. 5. The Learned AR, appearing on behalf of depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
