IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1002 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CUA.3/2009 Dated 20/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHRI SANJAY R.KHUSHALANI, B.K.NO.2030, ROOM NO.7, SECTION 37, HILL LINE, ULHASNAGAR, THANE-421 005. BY ADV. SRI. P.A. AUGUSTINE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, ALONG WITH RP 1006 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 1002/09 in Cus. A. 3/2009 R.P. No. 1006/09 in Cus. A. 4/2009 R.P.No.996/09 in Cus. A.5/2009 R.P. No.999/09 in Cus. A. 7/2009 R.P.No.1005/09 in Cus. A. 8/2009 R.P.No.1007/09 in Cus. A. 9/2009 R.P. No. 994/09 in Cus. A. 10/2009 R.P. No. 1004/09 in Cus. A. 11/2009 R.P. No. 998/09 in Cus. A. 12/2009 & R.P. No. 1001/09 in Cus. A. 14/2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petitions are filed against our judgment upholding the finding of the Tribunal that the customs department cannot impose a condition against sale of imported cars which were not granted TR benefit. Standing counsel for the department contended that even though TR benefit is not granted, the importers have a disability under Rule 107(d) against sale of the car within two years. He has also brought to our notice the undertaking given by the importers that they would not sell the imported car for two years However, it is seen from the adjudication orders that redemption fine and personal fine are not based on the undertaking against sale agreed by the importers through 2 affidavits filed by them. No specific rule was mentioned in the adjudication order which entitles the department to impose a bar against sale of imported car for two years. We do not think there is any need to consider whether the rule authorises the department to impose a condition against sale of car for two years after release of the same because in all these cases the import was more than two years back and at least as of now importers would have been able to sell the cars after the lock-in period. No revenue loss was brought to our notice on account of sale of the cars within a period of two years, if at all ban was reasonable. If cars are imported by wrongly putting up TR claim and the parties are trading in imported vehicles, nothing stopped the department from confiscating the vehicles without giving the right to redeem the same. We therefore do not find any merit in the Review Petitions. Consequently Review Petitions are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3