9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as new whereas in reality all such cars were sold and registered in the country of export prior to export thereof and thus fell in the category of second hand cars thereby attracting higher duties of Customs, than paid by them. It was further revealed that they were involved in under-invoicing the value of these vehicles at the time of import and thus, evading differential customs duty on the same. In consequence thereof, residential premises of Shri Sumit Walia was searched and various documents were found. It was also found that Shri Sumit Walia imported Land Rover Range Rover 3.6 TDV8 car bearing Chassis No. SALLMAM238A290383 under Invoice No. 9855 dated 3.6.2008 of M/s. A K international (IE) Ltd., Royal House, England. The price of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the car by Shri Sumit Walia or Shri Vikas Sharma. He further submits that initially the car was imported by Shri Sumit Walia in the name of Shri Vikas Sharma and was registered on 30.7.2008 and later on sold to the appellant in October, 200.9 and same was transferred in the name of appellant on 31.10.2009. He further submits that no statement of the appellant was recorded at the time of seizure of the car. Director of the appellant company was out of town and therefore, show cause notice was issued immediately without recording any statement of the appellant. He also submits that since the appellant has no direct connection with the import of impugned car, therefore, the appellant purchased the car in bonafide belief and car was cleared b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishvas Uday Singh Laad, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 55023-55024/2014 dated 17.12.2014 reduced the redemption fine imposed to 23% of imposed by the adjudicating authority and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, in this case also, redemption fine be reduced to 23% and penalties be waived. 5. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the observations made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On perusal of the record, and thorough consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the impugned car was imported by Shri Sumit Walia in the name of Shri Vikas Sharma on 6.6.08 and the car was cleared for home consumption. On 11.6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we find that Appellant No.2 has contended the valuation of the car and submitted that the car is not an old car is not acceptable as the impugned order has not been challenged by Shri Sumit Walia and Shri Tarun Kumar, therefore, the said part of the order has attained finality. In these circumstances, we are not agreeing with the contentions of the ld. counsel of the Appellant No,2 that the car is new one and the value of the car is declared correctly. 11. We further find that the contention that the car cannot be confiscated as appellant is a bona fide purchaser. We hold that the car has been confiscated for under-valuation and mis- declaration and the said part of the order has not been challenged by the importer. In these circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
