9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of the appellant was recorded and having no role in illegal importation of the car, the penalty under various provisions of the Customs Act namely, 112 (a), 114 AA & 114A is not imposable. Decided in favour of appellant - Customs Appeal No. 51027 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Shri B B Sharma, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing the Redemption fine and imposition of penalty under section 112 (a) and 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that an intelligence was received by DRI that one Shri Sumit Walia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant along with other co-noticees for confiscation of car and demanding differential duty from the importer and imposing penalty on various appellants along with co-noticee for alleged importation of car. Matter was adjudicated. Car was held liable for confiscation and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 16 lakh. A penalty of ₹ 67,59,211/- was imposed on the appellant under section 1I2(a) and section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 5 lakh was also imposed on the appellant under section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me. 3. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a bonafide pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri)]. 4. He further submits that for imposition of redemption fine, he is a bonafide purchaser of car, therefore, redemption fine is not imposable in the light of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Five Star Shipping Co. [2012 (278) ELT 196 (Kar)] wherein it was held that the car which is cleared by the Customs department and after such clearance, the purchase was effected by the bona fide purchaser, such bona fide purchaser is not liable to pay redemption fine even if the car was under valued and the original importer is liable to pay the differential duty. In alternative, he submits that of ₹ 16 lakh was excessively high and not commensurate with the evidence, which clearly established that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Vikas Sharma. Therefore, the said appellate order has attained finality. We also find that in similar set of facts of the case of Shri Vishvas Uday Singh Laad (supra) this Tribunal has observed as under: - 10. On perusal of the record and facts of the case, we find that initially the car was imported by Shri Sumit Walia in the name of Shri Tarun Kumar on 04.04.2008. We find that initially the car was imported for sale to M/s. Oswal in Ludhiana and the same was later on purchased by the Appellant No.2 on 21.04.2008. The appellant has purchased the car after the clearance from the customs as a bona fide purchaser of the car and has taken the loan of ₹ 60 lakhs for purchase of the car. In these circumstances, we hold that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f redemption fine of ₹ 5 lakhs. 8. As in the case of Vishvas Uday Singh Laad, this tribunal has come to a conclusion that the car is requested to confiscated for under valuation and mis-declaration and said order was not challenged by the importer. In these circumstances, imported car is liable for confiscation but also it was further observed that redemption fine imposed on the car is highly excessive and therefore is reduced. Following the precedent decision of this Tribunal on identical facts, in this case also we hold that car is liable for confiscation and redemption fine imposed on the car is excessively high. Therefore redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty thousand only). On such paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
