9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in the process of importation of the car. The car was neither imported for his benefit nor on his behalf. It was Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil who was the importer from whom no recovery of the differential duty had been made. The appellant herein is only a subsequent purchaser of the said vehicle from a person who had purchased the same from the importer. Thus, the appellant cannot be charged for paying customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act as an importer or owner of the goods within the meaning of the definition of importer. Owner of the vehicle - HELD THAT:- On reading of provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, which defines owner under Section 2(30) of the said Act, would indicate that when a motor vehicle stands registered in the name of a person, he would be the owner of the said motor vehicle. Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the necessity for registration. Admittedly, in the instant case, the car in question has not been registered in the name of the appellant herein but the registration certificate continues to be in the name of the original importer Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil. Therefore, the latter is the owner of the vehicle in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding short-levied customs duty to the tune of Rs.17,92,847/-. The said Show-Cause Notice was issued under Section 28(1) read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 [ Customs Act ] and stated that it was a case of deliberate misdeclaration of model and the year of manufacture, along with tampering with the chassis number of the imported car for the purpose of under invoicing and under valuation of the vehicle and evading the payment of the differential duty of customs amounting to Rs.17,92,847/-. The appellant replied to the same by letter dated 24.07.2007. This was followed by an order-in-original dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.17,92,847/- being the duty short levied and short-paid on the imported vehicle and ordered the confiscation of the car with an option of redemption of the confiscated car on payment of fine and the differential duty. The demand was raised jointly and severely against the importer and the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred Appeal No. C/311/2008 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any registration certificate issued in the name of the appellant herein incorporating his name as owner of the vehicle, the appellant cannot be construed to be the owner of the motor vehicle in question. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the very initiation of the proceeding by the issuance of the summons and Show-Cause Notice to the appellant is vitiated. In the circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside and the Show Cause Notice impugned as well as the proceedings against the appellant herein may be dropped was the submission on behalf of the appellant. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Rupesh Kumar appearing for the respondent-Department drew our attention to Section 28 as well as Section 124 of the Customs Act and contended that the vehicle in question was seized when it was in the possession of the appellant herein, and while it may be that the vehicle has not been registered in the name of the appellant as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but the fact remains that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle, that is the good, having regard to the fact that he had admittedly purchased the same. 9. Therefore, the vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit nor on his behalf. It was Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil who was the importer from whom no recovery of the differential duty had been made. The appellant herein is only a subsequent purchaser of the said vehicle from a person who had purchased the same from the importer. Thus, the appellant cannot be charged for paying customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act as an importer or owner of the goods within the meaning of the definition of importer. 13. We have also considered the reliance of the learned senior counsel for the respondent on Section 125 of the Customs Act. The relevant portion is as follows: 125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered in the name of the appellant herein but the registration certificate continues to be in the name of the original importer Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil. Therefore, the latter is the owner of the vehicle in law. It may be that there has been a transfer of the vehicle from Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil to Sri Shailesh Kumar from whom the appellant has purchased the vehicle. However, there is no ownership in law which can be recognized insofar as the appellant herein is concerned inasmuch as his name has not been entered in the registration certificate concerning the vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the appellant herein cannot be construed to be the owner of the vehicle and hence, he does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the argument that the appellant can be made liable to pay the duty because the seized car was in the possession of the appellant cannot also be accepted, since as per Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, the possessor of the car can be made liable only when the owner of the goods is not known. However, in the instant case, it is an admitted position that the ownership of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
