9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to Rs. 6,08,808/-. 2.Briefly stated the facts are that one Mrs. Priyadarshini Chitteaputhran imported the impugned car and filed bill of entry on 15-9-1995. The car was assessed to duty on the basis of computed value of Rs. 9,57, 420/-. Subsequent investigations revealed that she had not acquired the car before 22-6-1995 and as such had not satisfied the pre-condition for eligibility to import, viz., use of the car by the importer for more than a year prior to return to India. Investigation also revealed that the value of the car was 24,500 sterling pounds. A show cause notice dated 31-10-1997 was issued to Mrs. Priyadarshini and the Appellant Shri Sumant Sood who had purchased the car on 14-12-1996 which has resulted in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a nominal redemption fine is sufficient. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai, 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1028 (T). 5.Countering the arguments, Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the Customs duty is related to the goods and not to the person; that Section 28(1) of the Customs Act provides for issue of notice for recovery of duty not paid/short paid, etc. to the person chargeable with the duty; that Section 125 of the Customs Act clearly provides for redemption of confiscated goods to the owner of the goods who shall be liable to duty and charges payable in respect of redeemed goods. He, therefore, contended that Section 28 read with Section 125 makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority and as such provisions of Section 125 were not applicable. 7.We have considered the submissions of both the sides. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate for the Appellant fairly mentioned that the Appellant is not challenging the enhancement of the value of the car. As the value of the impugned car has been mis-declared, the car has been confiscated by the Commissioner under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. As held by the Tribunal in VXL India case, the contention that the Appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the car does not absolve it of the consequences that may attach themselves to the car for the wrongful import. Thus we find no reason to interfere with the enhancement of the value and confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended by the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant. Duty short-paid/levied, etc. can be demanded from any person chargeable with the duty. If "person" is to be equated with importer, notice under Section 28 cannot be issued to a buyer whom erroneous refund has been made to. We also find that sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act specifically provides as under :- "(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 charge payable in respect of such goods." It is not the case of the Appellant that he is not the owner of the car. Further, even the person from whose po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
