9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that, 25 cars were released and thereafter the said cars were seized on the ground that the said cars were used in the open market in violation of conditions of licence. The matter was settled by the learned Settlement Commission at Mumbai and immunities from fine, penalty and prosecution were also granted in respect of 20 cars. The seizure of the remaining 5 cars is pending before the Commissioner of Customs for re-export. Subsequently, the balance 6 cars were lying uncleared at ICD, Ludhiana, which had been seized by the DRI and subject-matter of present appeal. The Commissioner of Customs by the impugned order confiscated these 6 cars and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the Appellant No. 1 and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessed under Exemption Notification. The cars were brought under valid EPCG licence issued by the DGFT, for use in rent-a-cab service. Notification No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000 permitted import of capital goods under valid EPCG licence issued by the DGFT subject to fulfilment of the condition of Export Obligation. The learned DR submits that the appellant was directed to file the necessary papers including bill of entry in order to clearance of their imported cars. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner that these 6 cars were confiscated the presumption that the appellant may misuse the EPCG Scheme. In this connection, the learned Advocate referred to CBEC Circular No. 75/99-Cus., dated 10-11-1999 wherein it has been observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives rise to suspicion that the importer and exporter were same or they were active in collusion. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court that the licence, against which the import took place, was found to contain forgery. 7. We find that the facts of the present case are totally different. The Appellant herein imported the goods under valid EPCG licence issued by the DGFT. Further, the Appellant attended the proceedings in respect of seizure of 25 cars. The appellant also approached before the ld. Settlement Commission to settle the dispute of seizure of 20 cars. The appellant also paid the duty thereon and the ld. Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty, fine and prosecution. Thus, the case of Grand Prime Ltd. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
