9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom USA via Thailand - confiscation and penalty not justified - C/318/2006 - 1002/2008 - Dated:- 16-9-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri B. Satish Sundar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- This appeal is directed against the impugned order by which the Commissioner of Customs confiscated a car imported by the appellant u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 62 (the Act), ordered its redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. Eight lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. Two lakhs u/s 112 on the appellant. The facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a new 'Hummer H2' brand car by vessel Jakarta Star. The Commissioner found that the import of the car was in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Del.) in passing the above order. As the international accredited agency had declined to issue the required certificate, in the case of J.S. Gujral v. CC (supra), it was held that the importer could not be required to fulfill a condition which was impossible for him to fulfill. Penalty for the violation involved in importing the car without the TAC was vacated. It is submitted that the appellant deserved similar relief. The ld. Counsel also relies on a decision of the Tribunal in Alsa Marine Harvests Ltd. v. CC, Cochin reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.-Chen.), wherein it was held that in deciding violation involved in not fulfilling impossible conditions, the authorities ought to have borne in mind the legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in USA had not satisfied the condition of import from the country of manufacture. She requests that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication when all the relevant aspects of the case could be examined with reference to the documents now submitted by the appellant. 5. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions by both sides. The appellant was penalized and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. Eight lakhs on a finding that the impugned import had taken place in violation of the policy provisions. As regards the objection that the importer had not furnished TAC from the designated agency of the country of manufacture, the USA and the designated agency for the purpose do not figure in the Policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
