9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heen Kunhi Thayil had imported the vehicle in question being a Porsche Carrera Car on 28.06.2002. The said car was later sold to one Sri Shailesh Kumar in the year 2003. Subsequently, the appellant herein is stated to have purchased the said car in the month of October, 2004. It is stated that in the year 2006, the appellant, along with the importer Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil, the first possessor Sri Shailesh Kumar and a broker named Sri Haren Choksey who was the brother of the appellant, was served with the Show-Cause Notice dated 27.06.2007 demanding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Department filed the Customs Appeal No.18/2009 before the High Court of Kerala. As already noted, by the impugned order dated 03.04.2018, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by allowing the said appeal. The High Court, while answering the questions of law in favor of the respondent herein, observed that the payment of short-levy of duty is a necessary consequence of redemption of the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act and since the appellant herein had exercised the option to redeem the goods, he was liable to pay the customs duty despite being a subsequent purchaser. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant herein is the importer of the car in question. On a reading of the definition of the expression 'importer' under clause (26) of Section 2 of the Customs Act. The definition reads as under: "Section 2 - Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - x x x x (26) "importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner, beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer;" 12. As per the above inclusive definition, an "importer" can include an owner, a beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer. But these personae would fall under the above definition only duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings are deemed to be concluded under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 28 or under clause (i) of sub-section (6) of that section in respect of the goods which are not prohibited or restricted, no such fine shall be imposed: Provided further that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods." 14. It is undisputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
