9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of physical concealment within the car having been brough out, the car being available for examination by Customs and duties of Customs having already been paid on the car at the point of first import, denial of benefit of said Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 would be travesty of justice . Having extended the benefit of the Notification No.94/1996 dated 16.12.1996 which is eligible for goods being exported for repairs, we do not find any reason for confiscating the vehicle nor imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. Hence redemption fine and penalty is set aside. The Revenue challenging the additional grounds filed by the appellant for the first time regarding determination of duty submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted revealed that the appellant was present in India during almost the entire period when the vehicle was in Dubai for repairs and he had not used the vehicle for the purpose of touring undertaken by him and he did not possess an international license which would have enabled him to drive the vehicle in UAE. Therefore, the appellant was not eligible for duty- free clearance of the said vehicle on its import. Accordingly, the Commissioner denied the benefit of duty-free import of the Ferrari Italia 458 car under Carnet De Passage Douane CPD No. Dex.0115496, but extended the benefit of Notification No.94/96 dated 16.12.96. Accordingly, duty of Rs.95,00,184/- was confirmed on the value of Rs.44,46,745/- being the cost of repairs of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted. At Dubai, the car was imported by use of the carnet which was endorsed by the UAE customs and while the car was at Dubai, was subject to certain repairs. On 10.12.2013, the car was shipped from UAE and reimported at Cochin Port and on arrival of the car on 07.01.2014, the appellant informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs seeking endorsement on the carnet for the reimportation of the car. On the same day, the Customs House Agent filed a letter along with the original carnet and copy of passport of the appellant for customs clearance. However, since the car was subjected to repairs abroad, the customs authorities being of the view that carnet was misused issued a show-cause notice to the appellant denying the benefit of duty-free im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom UAE and the Carnet itself shows endorsements by the UAE customs authorities. The import and export under Carnet are covered by the ATA Carnet Regulations, 1990 and in terms of these Regulations, the Carnet for merchandise goods is prescribed as the Bill of Entry and the Shipping Bill. But in the present case, since the Carnet is issued for a vehicle, the said Regulations do not apply, therefore it is submitted that there was no misdeclaration as such and hence, the goods were not liable for confiscation or imposition of penalty. However, since the repairs were undertaken at Dubai, the appellant is liable to pay duty on the value of the repairs that was undertaken. Further, though the learned counsel accepts that they are liable to pay d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .: 2015 (319) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) dated 15.04.2015. iii) Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai: 2006 (197) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. - Del.) dated 05.08.2005. iv) Saci Allied Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut: 2005 (183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C) dated 26.04.2005. v) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus K. Boopalrajah: 2005 (184) E.L.T 295 (Tri.- Chennai) dated 01.02.2005. vi) Dailmer Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi: 2016 (331) E.L.T 126 (Tri. Mumbai) dated 11.09.2015. 4.1 With regard to the appellant s claim that only basic customs duty is liable to be paid under the Notification No.94/1996 dated 16.12.1996, it is submitted that the appellant is liable to pay all the duties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had made an explicit declaration to the effect that the vehicle was being taken for Dubai for touring purpose. The appellant has also clearly admitted that though the permission was taken for tour purpose, appellant did not travel to Dubai and therefore, the purpose for which the vehicle was taken to Dubai was only meant for repairs and return. On reimport of the vehicle, the appellant though filed a letter for endorsement on the Carnat documents failed to disclose that the car was taken for repairs to Dubai. In view of the above, there is a misdeclaration on the part of the appellant to the effect that the car was exported only for the purpose of repair and reimported thereafter. Since the appellant has accepted his liability on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
