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 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 Cus.Appeal.No. 3 of 2009() -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/07/2008 IN ORDER NO 775/08 IN APPL.C/275/2008 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WELLINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN- 682009 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHRI.SANJAY R.KHUSHALANI,B.K.NO.2030 ROOM NO.7,SECTION 37,HILLDANE VIHASANAGAR, THANE-421005. THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, ALONG WITH CUA NO. 4 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Cu. Appeal Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12 & 14 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Connected appeals are filed against the orders of the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lifting the condition imposed by the adjudicating authority against sale of imported car for two years from the date of import. Respondents imported cars claiming TR benefit. However, in the course of adjudication the department found that imported vehicles were not used by the importers for the required minimum period of one year and so much so respondents were not entitled to import under the Transfer of Residence Rules. In fact TR benefit was declined and the imported vehicles were confiscated under Section 114D of the Customs Act. However, adjudicating officer after levying penalty gave an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of duty and redemption fine. Respondents opted for payment of redemption find and got release of 2 the vehicles. However, while releasing the vehicles, prohibitory orders were issued against sale of the vehicle for two years. It is against this condition imposed by the adjudicating officer that respondents approached the appellate authority who cancelled the condition. On further appeal by the department, the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is confirmed by the Tribunal, against which these appeals are filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that imported cars are not allowed to be sold for two years. However, admittedly this condition is applicable only for those cars imported by availing TR benefit where importer enjoyed concessional rate of duty in regard to import. On the other hand, in these cases, respondents were declined TR benefit in regard to imported cars, and consequently they got release of the vehicles on payment of redemption fine and penalty. We have not been able to understand under what provision prohibition can be introduced against sale of imported car other than under TR Scheme. In the circumstances, since respondents have not been given TR benefit for the imported cars, restriction introduced by 3 the adjudicating authority against sale of imported cars for two years was rightly cancelled by the Commissioner and re-confirmed by the Tribunal. No other issue arises for consideration in these appeals. Consequently appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 4