Dipesh Shah Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that owner of the car is liable to pay customs duty on redemption of the confiscated vehicle/ car even if the owner is not the importer of the car. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- The appellant contends to have purchased an Audi Q 7 Car from Sri Basab Paul through one Mumbai based car dealer Sri Haren Choksey for a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. Delivery of the said car was taken on 10th October 2007.
Based on reports concerning fraudulent imports of cars, DRI undertook detailed investigations into the matter in October 2009. Statement of the appellant was recorded on 21.01.2010 and the car was seized on 22.01.2010. Provisional release of the car was sought by the appellant upon payment of Rs.18,21,788 and Rs.7,56,167/-. The appellant executed an indemnity Bond for 100% of the ascertained value of the car along with bank guarantee of 25% for provisional release of the seized car.
After due process, the Adjudicating authority held that the imported car was second-hand car and re-determined its Value and Customs Duty payable by the importer. In proceedings before the adjudicating authority, the appellant had taken the stand, that he was not liable for payment of differential duty u/s. 28 (1) of the Customs Act, as he was not the importer and relied upon certain case laws in support of his stance.
