Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
III(m), that Mr. Futehally was the pivotal figure in the import, false
transaction, payment from Osaka and sale in India, and that the NRI
importers had only assisted in this. Even in the present case the
cubic capacity of the engine of the said car had not even been
1984 to
Jan, 1988 The Appellant was employed in Singapore from
in India.
were.
Audi car.
incidental charges.
Notice.
penalty.
2/3/4/21/22/
June 2004 The Appellant states that it appears that there were
other Audi cars into India and that Appeals had been
the Tribunal on 2nd, 3rd and 4th June, 2004, and again on
importers: -
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
New Custom House,
Ballard-Estate, Bombay. … Respondent
TO
Tribunal also held that the car have been imported by the Appellant
dated 2nd July, 2004 was despatched by the Registry of the CESTAT,
Mumbai on 15th July, 2004 and the same was received by the
2. QUESTION OF LAW
Appellant’s case?
so when the cubic capacity of the said engine had not even
was a bona fide purchaser of the car from his own earnings,
Appellant had himself paid for the duties and other charges?
(h) WHETHER the Tribunal failed to appreciate that thereafter, the
Appellant being desirous of selling the said car had the same
importer?
from Osaka and sale in India, and that the NRI importers had
commission from the bill and that they were consciously taking
first, it was the Appellant’s own desire to sell the car, after the
breach of any law if the Appellant chose to sell the car after its
been filed by him earlier against the impugned Final Judgement and
order.
4. That briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of
India.
Ashiya Motors.
4.3 The Appellant after discussing the matter with Mr. Futehally,
Germany.
4.5 The Appellant came in contact with one Mr. Dilip Parikh, a
documents.
Annexure-P/1.
4.8 In the meanwhile, the Appellant was offered a job in India, and
4.9 On import of the said car, the Appellant paid customs duty
the car, and also paid Rs 28,000/-in cash to Mr. Dilip Parikh
delivery of the said car was made some time in the last week
of July, 1988.
Show Cause Notice dated 21st January, 1991 was issued inter
marked Annexure-P/2.
Annexure-P/4.
is annexed as AnnexureP/5.
annexed as Annexure-P/6.
4.18 The Appellant states that it appears that there were several
heard together by the Tribunal on 2nd, 3rd and 4th June, 2004,
4.20 However, by an order dated 2nd July, 2004, which was passed
importers: -
Commissioner.
GROUNDS
Commissioner.
Appellant’s case.
so when the cubic capacity of the said engine had not even
was a bona fide purchaser of the car from his own earnings,
Appellant had himself paid for the duties and other charges.
Appellant being desirous of selling the said car had the same
importer.
from Osaka and sale in India, and that the NRI importers had
commission from the bill and that they were consciously taking
first, it was the Appellant’s own desire to sell the car, after the
breach of any law if the Appellant chose to sell the car after its
desirous of selling his car after clearance had been clearly set
on oath.
violation of law.
Procedure as aforesaid.
the car.
(T) BECAUSE the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that it was
had not even caused the cubic capacity of the engine of the
VALUATION REPORT:
be the assessable value of the cars. The Tribunal hold that re-
valuation of the cars should be done on the Tourist Prices List and
tourist price for the model in question plus the cost of additional
PRAYERS
No.687/2004-NB(A)].
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
DRAWN ON:11.9.04
FILED ON: 16.9.04
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
Bombay. … Respondent
CERTIFICATE
FILED BY:
(R. NEDUMARAN)
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
Dated: /9/2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
I.A.NO. OF 2004
IN
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
Bombay. … Respondent
TO
pleas made on behalf of the Appellant. The Tribunal also held that
Section 111(m).
already been set out in the accompanying Civil Appeal and the same
are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and to avoid
unnecessary repetition.
PRAYER
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
Bombay. … Respondent
WITH
I.A.NO. OF 2004
[An Application for ex-parte Stay]
PAPER BOOK
S. PARTICUALRS PAGE
NO. NOS.
5. ANNEXURE-P/1. 57 – 57A
True copy of the relevant Bill of Entry dated 4 th July,
1988.
6. ANNEXURE-P/2. 58 – 128
True copy of the said Show Cause Notice dated 21 st
January, 1991.
11. An Application for ad-interim ex-parte Stay with Affidavit. 261 – 265
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
Bombay. … Respondent
NEW DELHI
September 16, 2004
SECTION OFFICER