IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Cus.Appeal.No. 22 of 2009() --------------------------- FINAL ORDER NO.1141/2008 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE .................... APPELLANT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHRI.IQBAL KADAPRAKATH KOONAL K.K.HOUSE, KAPPAKADAVU, AZHEEKAL ,KANNUR. THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... Customs Appeal No.22 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The respondent imported a Toyota Lexus car and claimed TR benefit. However, on enquiry it was found that respondent was not entitled to import the car under the TR Rules as he had not used it abroad for the required period. Consequently the car was ordered to be confiscated. However, respondent was given an option to release the car on payment of redemption fine and duty. Personal penalty was also levied for violation of the Import Control Rules. In appeal, the Commissioner reduced redemption fine and personal penalty and deleted the condition imposed by the adjudicating authority against sale of the car for two years. Even though department appealed against order of the Commissioner(Appeals), Tribunal rejected the same vide Annexure-A3 order. The appeal is filed against this order of the Tribunal. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2 2. Even though serious objection is raised against deletion of the condition imposed by the adjudicating authority against sale of the car for two years, the appellant has not informed us under what provision an importer who is not granted TR benefit is required to retain the car for two years. When there is no restriction against sale of the car imported by the respondent under any law, appellant cannot impose a condition against sale of the car for two years. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms