9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government. However, if an option of redemption is given to the appellant and the appellant chooses that option, then the title of the goods goes back to the appellant under section 125 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the appellant will also be liable to pay duty and other charges, as applicable by virtue of section 125 of the Customs Act. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any finding as to why the goods were liable for confiscation - There is also no finding anywhere in the order of the Joint Commissioner as to why the motorbike was liable for confiscation under what section. Reduction of redemption fine - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any specific finding that the goods were liable for confiscation under any specific legal provision, the confiscation of the motorbike cannot be sustained. The confiscation of the motorbike, therefore, needs to be set aside. Consequently, the title of the goods shifts back to the appellant and motorbike need not be redeemed by paying any redemption fine by the appellant. Since the appellant is not liable to pay redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, the appellant is also not liable to pay any duty and other cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bill of Entry was fake and fabricated. Further investigations showed that the vehicle belonged to Sahil Verman the appellant who had purchased it from Rishi Sood after paying appropriate consideration for the vehicle in good faith. Thereafter, a show cause notice [SCN] was issued to the appellant (Sahil Verman) and Rishi Sood proposing to confiscate the motorbike and also demanding duty. 3. The proposals were resisted by the appellant which were, however, confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi who passed the impugned order. It needs to be pointed out that although the order of the Joint Commissioner was in respect of all three noticees namely Rishi Sood, Sahil Verman (appellant) and Jaspal Singh, the impugned order is only in respect of the appeal filed by the appellant. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the appellant had purchased the motorbike in good faith and that he was not the importer and that no duty under section 28 of the Customs Act could be demanded from him since he was not the importer. However, he upheld the imposition of redemption fine, but reduced it fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. (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 . 9. In view of above, learned authorized representative appearing for the department submitted that whenever confiscated goods are allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, duty and other charges, as applicable must be paid by the person redeeming the goods. 10. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department also submitted that it is not necessary that the person redeeming the goods is the importer. He could be the owner of the goods who might be allowed redemption of goods under section 125. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erman against a lesser redemption fine of Rs. 3 lacs only on the confiscated bike considering the fact that the bike has already suffered depreciation since 12.8.09 being in the custody of the department. 3. I also confirm and demand Customs duty amounting to Rs. 16,55,599.40 from Shri Sahil Verman under proviso to section 28 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under the provision of section 28 AB ibid. 4. I also appropriate the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs submitted vide demand draft No. 045453 dated 29.07.2010 towards the said duty liability. 5. I impose a penalty of Rs. 16,55,590/- on Shri Sahil Verman under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Rishi Sood under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. I refrain from imposing any penalty of Shri Jaspal Singh in view of my foregoing discussions . 14. There is also no finding anywhere in the order of the Joint Commissioner as to why the motorbike was liable for confiscation under what section. 15. The Commissioner (Appeals) did reproduce the show cause notice in paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 that the goods appeared to be liable for confiscation under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
