9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differential customs duty to the tune of ₹ 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. - Petition disposed of - W. P. (C) 3629/2016 & CM 15537/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate ORDER 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) and the Commissioner of Customs, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively is whether the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the various documents, it was found that one Ferrari 599 GTB F1 HGTE was imported by Bill of Entry No. 556107 dated 24th August 2009 in the name of Respondent. The invoice No. 44376 dated 19th August 2009 raised by M/s. A.K. International (IE) Limited, United Kingdom (U.K.) upon the Respondent in respect of the said car was also recovered where the cost, interest and freight ( CIF ) price for the said car was declared as GBF 184842 and the duty was discharged on concessional rate of basic customs duty at 60% by declaring as a new car. 4. Based on the above facts, a show-cause notice ( SCN ) was issued to the Respondent and others calling upon them to show cause as to why the assessable value should not be re-determined at ₹ 1,57,56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the import of a vehicle which had been registered in the U.K. prior to its import and whether the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 would be applicable. It is pointed out that the issue in the present petition is under consideration by the Supreme Court in the above SLP (C) No. 243-244 of 2014, and therefore, the issue arising in the present petition should be deferred. 9. The Court finds that a view has been taken by this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import General) New Delhi v. Buhariwal Logistics 2016 (332) ELT 278 (Del) on the very same issue concerning importing of high end luxury cars from U.K. In that case, the car was registered in the U.K on 28th March 2008 and a few days thereafter, it was cleared by Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciety Nottingham on 27.07.2009 who subsequently sold it on 17.08.2009 to Shri Gurpal Chawla, K.S. Farm, Rajokri. The said report does not speak anything about M/s. A.K. International, UK or M/s Jay Polychem India Ltd. which indicates that the fact of sale to M/s. A.K. International (IE) Ltd. UK by the UK based authorized dealer was not available in the database maintained by Ferrari. 12. The CCESC has also noted in para 29.6 of the impugned order that on a scrutiny of the documents it transpired that the car in question was manufactured by M/s. Ferrari Italy on 8th July 2009 and finished on 23rd July 2009. It was subsequently shipped to the U.K. and purchased by M/s. Graypaul Motors Ltd., Society Nottingham on 27th July 2009. It was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
