9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No. & Dt. Amount involved 1. 1.C/35/2008 Mr. Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. CC, Cochin O-I-A No. 481/2007 dt. 15-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF of Rs. 1,00,000/- Penalty of Rs.50,000/- 2. 1. C/272/2008 C/CrossObj./151/2008 CC, Cochin v. Mr. Razak Mammu Haji OIA No. 509/2007 dt. 22-11-2007 by CC (A), Cochin Valuation amount Rs.2,84,892/- RF: Rs.1,00,000/- Penalty: Rs. 50,000/- 2. C/273/2008 C/Cross Obj./94/2008 CC, Cochin v. Shri D'Souza Jerry OIA No. 517/2007 dt. 29-11-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF: Rs. 75,000/- Penalty Rs. 30,000/- 'No sale' condition quashed 3. C/274/2008 C/Cross Ob. /95/2008 CC, Cochin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 25-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF: Rs. 50,000/- Penalty Rs 25 000/- 11. C/754/2007 C/CO/90/2008 CC, Cochin v. Shri Gereria Prakash Phahilajrai OIA No. 488/2007 dt. 25-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF: Rs. 75,000/- Penalty: Rs.30,000/- No sale condition quashed Since there are common issues in these appeals/cross-appeals, we are taking up them together for common disposal. 2. We heard both sides. 3. Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR for the Revenue. 4. All these cases relate to import of Motor Cars through Cochin port. The imports have been made by the respondents availing the facility of Transfer of Residence. The import of cars is governed by Licensing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental Representative Shri Sambi Reddy invited our attention to the following provisions in the policy: (3) (1) The conditions at Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 above shall not be applicable on import of passenger cars/jeeps/multi utility vehicles etc. on payment of full Customs duty by the following categories of importers: (a) Individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad provided the car has been in the possession of the individual for a period of minimum one year abroad. (b) Resident Indians presented with a car as an award in any international event/match/competition; (c) Legal heirs/successors of deceased relatives residing abroad; (d) Physically handicapped persons; (e) Companies incorporated in Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when such vehicles are presented for registration in India. The DGFT may, however, permit relaxation of these conditions or imports by any other category not listed above in special circumstances. 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that on account of the violation of the import policy, penalties have been imposed on the respondents holding that the motor cars are liable for confiscation. Once, the penalties are imposed it means that the respondents are not availing of the TR concessions which enable them to import the car without obtaining licence. Therefore, further conditions of "No Sale" need not be insisted upon. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reasonable. Hence, we do not want to interfere with hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue's appeals are dismissed. C/753/2007, C/478/2007, C/749/2007, C/75072007, C/751/2007, C/752/2007 & C/754/2007 9. In respect of Appeal No. C/272/2008, the respondent Razak Mammu Haji accepted he paid 55,000/- dirham to the dealer in Dubai. However, he contended that the value of the car is only Yen 6,50,000/- which is less than 55,000/- dirham. The difference between the above amounts is the dealers' commission. The above contention was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). He gave the respondent relief by taking the value of the car to be 6,50,000/-Yens. Revenue is challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) especially when the respondent himself had accepted that an amount of 55,000/- dirham had been paid. We find st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he won't violate Indian laws. He also quotes a Latin maxim which means that the law does not asks one to do impossible things. This argument, at best is very specious one. If he could not be in possession of a car with right hand drive for one year in Dubai, he cannot for that reason violate the import policy of India by purchasing the same just before arrival at India. Actually in order not to violate the laws of UAE, the appellant justifies violation of import policy of India. This is not acceptable. The imposition of fine and penalty are justified. Hence, we reject appeal C/35/2008 and uphold the impugned order. 11. Summing Up: (a) except C/272/2008, all the remaining 10 appeals of Revenue are dismissed (b) Appeal No. C/35/2008 of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
