9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order dated 8th September 2015 thereby granting him the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1st March 2002; settle the differential customs duty of Rs. 7,92,228; permit the amount to be appropriated from the amount of Rs. 9,35,789 already deposited; determine the interest on the settled duty amount at Rs. 1,43,560 and permit it to also be adjusted from the amount deposited; impose fine of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of confiscation; levy penalty of Rs. 20,000 and grant immunity from prosecution. 2. The background facts are that the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi received information regarding that certain syndicates including one of Mr. Jatin Ahuja had been fraudulently importing high end luxury cars on large scale from the vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 ("CA"); differential customs duty of Rs. 31,47,519 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. 5 lakhs deposited by M/s. Suparna Holdings Private 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. 4252 of 2015 before the CCESC, New Delhi on 26th December 2014. The Respondent admitted the duty liability on account of undervaluation to the tune of Rs. 5,64,699 but contested the allegation concerning wrong availment of the exemption notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivance 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." 10. In the instant case, the facts reveal that the car in question was manufactured in Germany on 17th July 2008 and taken to the U.K. While the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
