9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.A.V.S. Ramakrishna Raju, where they had doubt that the said vehicle has been imported illegally into the country without following proper procedure. On subsequent investigation and recording of statement Mr. Raju, he informed that the said vehicle was purchased from the appellant. On further investigation, the appellant stated that the said motorcycle was purchased by him from one Mr. Ali Raza. Subsequent investigation revealed that bill of entry submitted to the RTA at Maharashtra for obtaining temporary registration was itself fake and therefore, entire documentation in relation to the said imported motorcycle was fake and based on fraudulent obtainment of documents by one Mr. Ali Raza, who has sold to the appellant. It is also on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned, he submits that the appellant has not only purchased the motorcycle from Mr. Ali Raza, who is still untraceable and who is alleged to be the importer/smuggler for the said motorcycle, for his self use and in fact was further sold by the appellant to Mr. Raju. Therefore, the plea of not having any malafide intent or reasons to believe is not sustainable. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. Since the appellants are no longer contesting the issue of confiscation of imported motorcycle, the short question, which is to be decided, is whether in the factual matrix of the case, penalty imposed on the appellant is sustainable or otherwise. I find that in this case, admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be any need for exercising due diligence to such a large extent. However, when one is buying commodities like car or motorcycle, it is expected that buyer would exercise greater degree of due diligence. Therefore, I find that in the given factual matrix, it does not appear that the appellant has exercised due diligence to the extent required to be exercised by a purchaser of an imported motorcycle and to that extent he has definitely failed. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. However, I find that penalty of Rs.25,000/- is not proportionate to the offence committed by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
