Nalin Choksey Vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that demanding differential duty of customs from subsequent purchaser of car not justified in as much as the ownership of the vehicle is still with the importer and possessor of the car can be made liable only when the owner of the goods is not known. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- Sri Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil had imported the vehicle in question being a Porsche Carrera Car on 28.06.2002. The said car was later sold to 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.
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 demanding short-levied customs duty to the tune of Rs.17,92,847/- stating 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. The said demand was confirmed.
