MOHAMMED YASEEN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against order -in -original dated 12 -10 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.

(2.) THE Customs Officer conducted certain investigations in connection with the import of a car attempted to be cleared by the Appellant vide Bill of Entry No. 02438, dated 8 -9 -1999 by manipulating certain documents in order to avail certain benefits. Revenue proceeded against him by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 15 -11 -1999. The original authority confiscated the car absolutely and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - on the appellant vide Order in Original 6/2000, dated 4 -2 -2000. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order No. 140/2000, dated 7 -4 -2000 ordered pre -deposit of Rs. 50,000/ - as a condition for hearing the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order in Appeal No. 11/2002 -Cus., dated 25 -1 -2002 ordered release of the car on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and further he reduced the personal penalty to Rs. 50,000/ -. The appellant addressed the department vide his letters dated 7 -2 -2002, 20 -3 -2002 and 27 -6 -2002 for release of the car and offered to pay the appropriate duty. Later he came to know that the department had already disposed the car. The Appellant was not put to notice before release of the car. Therefore, he addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Customs on 27 -6 -2002 for payment of the full value of the car. Since, the department turned a deaf ear to his request, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka for relief. The Honourable High Court directed the department to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Consequent to the direction of the High Court, the Commissioner of Customs has passed the impugned order. In the impugned order it is stated that the car was disposed on 1 -8 -2001 because the original authority had confiscated the vehicle absolutely and there was no stay by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner further ordered that the duty liability of the petitioner being Rs. 5,39,578/ - and the amount realized by the sale of the car being Rs. 4,10,100/ -, the appellant is not entitled to receive anything from the department and is liable to pay the difference in duty of Rs. 1,29,478/ -. The appellant is vehemently challenging the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.

(3.) SRI Lakshminarayana, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. The learned Advocate adduced the following arguments :