9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 31st August 2015 thereby granting the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1st March 2002 to the Respondent to settle the differential customs duty at Rs. 7,44,174 the amount to be appropriated from the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs already deposited; the interest on the settled duty amount was Rs. 2,79,974 which is also to be adjusted from the amount deposited; imposed fine of Rs. 75,000 in lieu of confiscation; penalty of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 20,000; and granted immunity from the prosecution to the Respondent. 2. Background facts to the present writ petition are that the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi received information regarding a syndicate of persons including one Mr. Jatin Ahuja fraudulently importing high end luxury cars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l customs duty of Rs. 89,76,347 and interest thereon under Section 28AA of the CA should not be recovered; penalty under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the CA should not be levied; and differential customs duty of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by M/s. Jay Polychem India Limited during the course of investigation should not be appropriated towards differential duty to the government account. 5. The Respondent then filed a Settlement Application No. 4499-4500/2014 before the Settlement Commission on 19th November 2014. The Respondent admitted the duty liability on account of undervaluation to the tune of Rs. 3,73,298 but it contested the allegation concerning wrongful availment of the exemption notification. 6. The DRI, in response to the above a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n connivance with the importer and he was aware of all the facts at the time of import. It was held that the Department had failed to discharge its prima facie onus of showing the involvement of the purchaser of the car with its importer. The Court"s attention has also been drawn to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Customs (Import) & Noshire Moody 2014 (300) ELT 205 (Bom) where it is noted that registration of the car in the U.K. was "only to comply with the requirement of the licensing authorities in the U.K. who require registration even for the purposes of exportation." 11. In the instant case, the facts a recorded by the CCESC in the impugned order read thus: "15. As per information provided by M/s. Ferrari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the car, it cannot be said that the said car ceased to be a new car and became a 'second hand' car at the time of its import.
13. Consequently, the impugned order of the CCESC giving the benefit of the Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 and determining the differential customs duty to the tune of Rs. 7,44,174 cannot be said to be perverse and warranting any interference by this Court. Other directions issued by the CCESC regarding interest, penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation and granting immunity from prosecution to the Respondent also do not require interference by this Court.
14. The writ petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
