Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Cochin on 30 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/20120/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2013 dated 20/09/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Govt. Recognized Star Export House Nirmal, 21st Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs Cochin Custom House Cochin 682 009 Kerala Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri P.A Augustian, Advocate Faizel Chambers, Pullepady Cross Road, Cochin - 682 018. Kerala For the Appellant Smt Ezhil Mathi, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 30/08/2016 Date of Decision: 30/08/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20695 / 2016 Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 20.09.2013 vide which the appeal of the appellant was rejected and the Order-in-Original was upheld. Briefly the facts of the present case are that as per Import Licensing Note (7) of Chapter 87, the import of new motor vehicles having a FOB value of USD 40,000/- or more and engine capacity of more than 3000 CC for petrol run vehicle and more than 2500 CC for diesel run vehicle are allowed to import into India on production of a Type Approval Certificate/COP of an international accredited agency from the country of origin at the time of customs clearance. As per this policy appellant had imported a brand new Toyota Alphard 350G for an amount of 4,881,600 JPY from M/s. Elem Toyota Co. Ltd. Japan. Immediately on arrival of the car at Cochin Port, the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 7356917 dated 11.07.2012. The respondent alleged illegality in the import of the car and the vehicle was not cleared on the allegation that the importer has not produced the Type Approval Certificate. In the present case it is admitted that the appellant could not produce the Type Approval Certificate from Japan but non-production of Type Approval Certificate is not a reason to allege that the car is liable for confiscation. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued for confiscation of the car. But without considering the import policy and submissions made by the appellant, respondent vide Order-in-Original assessed the value of the car as Rs. 34,09,383/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Three only) and ordered for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 (3) of the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992. The appellant was allowed to redeem the car on payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and further a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and the appellant paid the duty, fine and penalty and thereafter challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the Order-in-Original and hence the present appeal.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by the CESTAT, Bangalore as well as jurisdictional High Court of Kerala. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Ankineedu Maganti Vs. CC, Cochin - 2010 (262) E.L.T. 484 (Tri.-Bang.)
(ii) CC Vs. Ankineedu Manganti - 2012 (275) E.L.T. 551 (Ker.)
(iii) Saranga Agarwal Vs. CC (Seaport-Imports), Chennai - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 526 (Tri.-Chennai)
(iv) J.S. Gujral Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Del.)
(v) CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. J.S. Gujral - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 414 (Del.)
4. The learned AR has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I have gone through the judgments cited at bar and I am of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by all the judgments cited supra. Therefore, I allow the appeal of the appellant and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any. (Order pronounced in open court) (S.S GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss