9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified - the order of absolute confiscation is modified to confiscation with an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of appropriate redemption fine and customs duty and uphold the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Matter remanded to the adjudicating Authority only of the purpose of determining the redemption fine under Section 125 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/75937/2018 - FO/76831/2018 - Dated:- 8-10-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri P. A. Augustian, Adv. For the Appellant (s) Shri A. K. Singh, A. C. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER BENCH The facts of the case in brief are that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onally importing the goods which are prohibited to import at Kolkata Port, as discussed above. 3. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was found that the vehicle was not imported from the country of manufacture i.e. South Africa but it was imported from Dubai, UAE. 5. The Ld. Counsel P. A. Augustian, Advocate reiterates the grounds of appeal and submitted that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate that as per the practice followed in all the Customs House, when vehicle is imported by an NRI, even if the vehicle is not in their possession prior to import as contemplated under Import Policy, if they complied with other conditions of staying in abroad for more than 2 year, such vehicles are allowed to cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of the seized goods. 9. In this regard, we find that the import of car is not prohibited. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority ordering for absolute confiscation has not given justified findings for absolute confiscation. In this regard, we find from several Tribunal s decisions and Hon ble High Court s decisions where the goods are not prohibited, absolute confiscation is not warranted. We rely on the decision of the Hon ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Yakub Ebrahim Yuseph v. CC, Mumbai (Supra) held that regarding absolute confiscation of such goods which are not prohibited in detail by referring all the previous decision made by the Apex Court, various High Courts and other judicial forums in this regard and held as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en it is held that the car is liable for confiscation, the subject car should be released on a nominal redemption fine as done by adjudicating authorities/appellate authorities all over India. 11. Further, this Tribunal s Bench in the case of Sarguroh Azam Gulzar Khan v. Cc (Seaport-Import), Chennai in the Final Order No. 181/2010, dated 11-2-2010 also held that absolute confiscation is not warranted. Therefore, we hold that the Adjudicating authority in the present case ordering for absolute confiscation is not justified. Accordingly, we hold that the order of absolute confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority is modified into an order of confiscation with an option for redemption of vehicle on payment of redemption fine and ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
