M/S Sarfaraz Farooq Fazlani vs Cc, New Delhi

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/ICD/531/08 dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi)

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

M/s Sarfaraz Farooq Fazlani Appellant

Vs.

CC, New Delhi Respondent

Appearance:

None - for the Appellant

Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No. 51899/2015

Per R.K. Singh :

Stay application along with appeal has been filed against order in appeal dated 17/12/2008 in terms of which the order in original dated 27/11/2007 was upheld except to the extent that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs 2,25,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and penalty was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant had imported a car, from USA which was found to have been imported in violation of the ITC restrictions in as much as the appellant could not submit type approval certificate/ COP from international accredited agency as mentioned in the Policy circular No. 46 dated 09/02/2004 for the compliance of import licensing notes of chapter 87.

2. When the case was called today, there was no representation. Therefore the appeal is being decided ex parte on merits. waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. We find that the import of impugned car was in violation of the licensing requirements in as much as the type approval certificate / COP from international accredited agency as mentioned in the policy circular No. 26 dated 9/2/2004 which was required for the compliance of import licensing notes of chapter 87 was not produced by the appellant. Therefore confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs act 1962 is in order and penalty under Section 112 gets attracted as a consequence. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the fact that the appellant had submitted a certificate from Luxembourg in respect of a similar vehicle and that there was no international accredited agency in the USA and having regard to that fact reduced the redemption fine and penalties as mentioned above

3. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is therefore rejected.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

2