V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This is a Miscellaneous application for early hearing of the above noted appeal. The matter concerns import of one new Toyota Kijani motor vehicle declared as a Station wagon in the Bill of Entry valued at Rs. 2,22,696 by the appellants on a transfer of residence to India from Singapore. It is claimed that the car was gifted by the appellant’s father on his change of residence.
2. Heard Shri Satish Sundar, Ld. Advocate for appellants. He submits that the improper import thereof as no valid import licence was available is not challenged before us. The Miscellaneous application for early hearing may be granted as the issue lies on a small compass concerning only the quantum of Redemption Fine imposed. He submits that the Order-in-Original impugned has already accepted that the car was received as a gift and there was no commercial transaction involved thereon. Further, it is also on record that the car has not been sold and has been in the personal use of the importer. Ld. Advocate therefore submits that imposing Redemption Fine of a quantum of 150% of the said value is very harsh on the importer. Normally, Redemption fine is based on margin of profit. In this case, the car has not been purchased and neither has it been sold, therefore there is no question of any margin of profit in terms of trading.
3. Heard Shri S, Sankaravadivelu, Ld. JDR who submits that while it is true that the car may not have been sold till date, however since there are no post importation sale restrictions in law, therefore, improper import leading to confiscation has been correctly adjudicated by the original authority and accordingly correctly upheld by the appellate authority. He further submits that this was not second-hand or used car, but a very brand new Toyota vehicle which carries a high premium in the market, estimated to be around 150% of the said value by the lower authority. He has no objection to early hearing of the appeal as the matter lies on a very short compass.
4. I have carefully considered rival submissions. Since the matter lies on a very short compass concerning only the quantum of Redemption Fine imposed, therefore, the Miscellaneous application for early hearing is allowed. The appeal is considered by common consent of both sides. I find that it is not disputed that the import was unauthorised. Therefore, confiscation of the goods and offer to clear the same on Redemption Fine was certainly in accordance with the law. Coming to the quantum of Redemption Fine, I find that since the car was not purchased by the importer, but was a gift from his own father at the time when he was changing his residence from his father’s house to his independent residence in this country, and since it is still on record that the car has not been sold and is in the personal use of the appellant, therefore some leniency on the quantum of Redemption Fine is merited. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I find that it would be in the interest of justice if the Redemption Fine is reduced from 150% of the CIF value to 125%. Ordered accordingly. The appeal succeeds partially in the above terms.