ANKINEEDU MAGANTI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order -in -original No. 66/2009, dated 20 -04 -2009 vide which the adjudicating authority has ordered for the confiscation of the vehicle imported by the appellant with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,50,000/ - and also imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/ - under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein imported a vehicle declaring the same as New Toyota Alphard Royal Lounge. The value declared, the engine and chassis number were found to be reported as correct. The only reason for confiscation of the said vehicle arose on the ground that the appellant did not produce Type Approval Certificate/COP of an international accredited agency from the country of origin or an EC Type Approval Certificate as required in Licensing Note 7 of Chapter 87 of Schedule -I (Imports) to the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, 2004 -2009. The appellant participated in the personal hearing granted and submitted before the ld. adjudicating authority that the designated authority in Japan is not issuing the certificate and the importers importing car from Japan was not in a position to produce Type Approval Certificate. Adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation and imposed penalty. Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue on the Type Approval Certificate was considered by the Honble High Court of Delhi and the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed vide judgment dated 17 -10 -2008 as reported in CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. J.S. Gujral [2009 (235) E.L.T. 414 (Del.)]. It is his submission that there is an identical import of the similar car through Chennai Port under Bill of Entry No. 811892, dated 6 -8 -2008 which was allowed to be cleared without imposing fine and penalty and the current bill of entry which has been filed by the appellant is No. 241472, dated 2 -3 -2009. He submitted that the copy of the bill of entry and TR6 challan were produced and it was not considered by the adjudicating authority.

(3.) LD . DR would reiterate the findings of the adjudicating authority.