9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Order-in- Original itself that there is no mis-declaration neither of description nor of classification nor even of quantity and value except the violation of procedural condition of policy. Confiscation of imported vehicle is ordered only because said violation is admitted. But it is opined that substantial benefit of duty exemption shall not be denied on account of mere procedural lapse. As already discussed, the intent of the policy condition as is held to have been violated stands fulfilled in view of the certificate issued by Transport Authority. The order under challenge is not sustainable - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava , Advocate for the Appellant Shri V. J. Saharan , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA The appellant has imported four New Mercedes Benz V220D Sport Extra Long Auto classifying under CTH No. 87032391. The said goods were imported from M/s Bimta Group Ltd., Castle Court, 41 London Road, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9RJ, United Kingdom. The appellant filed EDI Bills of Entry No. 2456457 dated 14.07.2017, 2732842 dated 04.08.2017, 2732939 dated 04.08.2017 and 2456119 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as redemption fine. Penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a)(i) of the Act. Proof of compliance to conformity of production as required under Rule 126A of Central Motor Vehicle Rules was directed to be submitted within 6 months of the imports. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.J. Saharan, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the European Council Certificate of Conformity issued by Surrey Chamber of Commerce (Place of supply) and Type Approval from M/s Mercedes Benz (manufacturer) from abroad, shows that the vehicles adhered to European Standards. As per Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), there has to be a type approval certificate to satisfy that the vehicles comply with Central Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) and meet the relevant technical and safety requirements laid down by the Government. It can be seen that these vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing an importer or dealer in motor vehicles who imports or offers to import a new vehicle into India shall- (i) at the time of importation have valid certificate of compliance as per the provisions of rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), 1989, for the vehicle model being imported, issued by any of the testing agencies, specified in the said rule; (ii) be responsible for all the provisions assigned to the manufacturer as per Rules 122 138 of CMVR, 1989 and for issuing form 22, as per provisions of CMVR, 1989; and (iii) give an undertaking in writing that the proof of compliance to conformity of production as per rule 126A of CMVR shall be submitted within six months of the imports. In case of failure to do so, no further import of new vehicle of that model shall be allowed thereafter. 5.2 Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ankineedu Manganti (supra) held that: .In our view type approval certificate is mainly required to ensure that the vehicle is safe and road worthy for public use and it is to be considered by the registering authority while registering the vehicle and not by the Customs authority when it is imported. Besides this, the assumption of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports and exports, under the municipal laws of the country. As the impugned vehicle has already been registered with the authorities concerned, it would appear that the vehicle complies with all the stipulations for operation and running on Indian roads. This, in effect, is the sum and substance of the ruling of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in re Ankineedu Manganti holding that The appeal is filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2010 (262) ELT 484 (Tribunal)] holding that the confiscation of respondent s vehicle for non production of type approval certificate is untenable. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Import policy requires production of type approval certificate in respect of every model of vehicle imported. However, we notice from the Tribunal s order that the vehicle imported is produced by the world renowned vehicle manufacturer Toyota. It is the further finding that same types of vehicles are imported to India on earlier occasions. In our view type approval certificate is mainly required to ensure that the vehicle is safe and road worthy for public use and it is to be considered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
