Commissioner of Cus. (Air Cargo Export) vs Stupa Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

CM No. 20761 of 2016 (exemption): Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CUSAA No. 17 of 2016 & CM No. 20760 of 2016(stay)

The Customs Department is in appeal against the order dated 21st October, 2015 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (''CESTAT'') partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee against the Order-in-Original dated 3rd December, 2014 of the Commissioner of Customs (Import).

This is one other case arising from import of high end luxury cars by one Mr. Sumit Walia and the resultant short-payment of customs duty at the time of import. The assessee is a bona fide final purchaser of the said car imported by Mr. Walia. This Court has discussed the fads in detail in its order dated 15th December, 2015 in respect of one such purchaser in (Commissioner of Custom (Import & General) v. Buhariwal Logistics) 2016 (332) E.L.T. 278 (Del.). The facts therefore, need not be repeated. Suffice to note that CESTAT in the impugned order has confirmed the confiscation of the car in question, reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3.5 lakhs and deleted the penalty imposed on the respondent.

Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant Department, drew the attention of the Court to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (CA) to urge that the assessee should have been asked to pay the duty on the car in question. The Court notes that the Order-in-Original in this case did not make the ultimate purchaser, i.e., the respondent herein liable for payment of duty. The duty liability was fastened on to the first purchaser. The assessee went in appeal before the CESTAT on the issue of redemption fine and penalty. In that view of the matter, the question whether the respondent-assessee should have been held liable for payment of the customs duty does not arise.

As far as the deletion of the penalty is concerned, the Department has failed to prove the involvement of the respondent in the illegal import of the car in question. In the circumstances, the view taken by the CESTAT is a plausible one and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

The appeal and the application are dismissed.