9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and act as a broker in arranging sale of the imported cars. Intelligence was received by DRI Mumbai Zonal unit which indicated that Shri Roshan Somjee of Pune possessed one Toyota Prado Vehicle imported into India by mis-declaration under the Transfer of Residence Scheme. Pursuant to said information, inquires were made and it was further gathered that the Toyota Prado was imported by Shri Mohammed Haneef Husain in December 2003 at Mumbai Port by mis-declaring the model code of the vehicle and year of manufacture as 1998, whereas, the vehicle was actually of a higher model. In January 2004, Shri Mohammad Haneef Husain had approached the appellant and had showed his desire to sell the vehicle for a good price; Appellant had prepared necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat allegation of violation of post import condition is erroneous as the lower authorities have failed to notice that the subject car was registered in name of Roshan Somjee only, after 2 years of its importation. Therefore there is no violation of post import condition. 4.2 Further it is stated that 'NO SALE' condition, within 2 years of importation of the subject car, is required to be adhered and complied by the importer and not by the appellant neither it is alleged in SCN that the appellant has not completed the importer to sell the car nor the Ld Add Commissioner has arrived at such a conclusion. 4.3 Further the learned counsel submits that the allegation on appellant of abetting in the offence does not arise, as the importer ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Residence Scheme which places restriction of 2 years have been violated. As per the admitted facts on record, the appellant have helped in negotiation of sale prior to expiry of 2 years by helping in identification of willing buyer and some financial arrangement made during that period does not lead to the conclusion, that the appellant who is the car broker have venially violated any provisions and conditions of law. Further there is no restriction of the usage of vehicle by another with the permission of the owner before expiry of the 2 years period from the date of import. Accordingly, I hold that appellant have venially violated the provisions hence, penalty imposed on him under provision of Section 112(a) & (b) of Customs Act, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
