JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2007 (219) E.L.T. 168 (Tri.-Bang.)] holding that the confiscation liability arrived again and the order of confiscation and fine confiscating the car in the possession of bona fide purchaser in an open market is illegal and accordingly it set aside the said levy on redemption fine. The respondent is a purchaser of an imported car, released through customs after due assessment orders, on the declared value. The importer on verification of submitted duty paid customs clearance documents and purchased the car. The Customs Department took possession of the car after seizure and initiated enquiries. The valuation of the car was ordered to be increased and consequent redemption fine of Rs. 8 lakhs arrived at on this additional valuation now arrived at. The Department ordered additional duty on the original importer and not the present respondent. However, the respondent being a purchases of the car in the market under a bona fide belief that it is customs duty paid car is now required to pay the redemption fine. Therefore, he preferred the appeal challenging the said order. 2. The Appellate Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi, JT (1999) 9 SC 635 held that the authorities cannot collect the redemption fine from a bona fide purchaser in an open market and set aside the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 3. This Court admitted the appeal on 19-11-2007 to consider the following substantial question of law :- Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent by applying the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi, JT (1999) 9 SC 635 when there was no order passed by the authorities under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the vehicle was leased in favour of the importer? 4. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi, JT (1999) 9 SC 635 when there was no order passed by the authorities under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the vehicle was leased in favour of the importer? 4. The Apex Court in Mohan Meakin Ltd. case has held as under :- Having released the goods thus into the market and permitting sale of the same in our opinion, it is not open to the Collector to initiate another proceeding under clause of Section 111 to recover the so called differences in valuation of the imported goods from the ultimate bona fide purchaser for value. If the Collector failed to make proper enquiries as to market value of the goods and released the same after a half-hearted adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of under valuation more so in the backgrounds of the fact that the appellants has no role to play either in the importer or earlier adjudication proceedings. In the light of aforesaid law declared, a bona fide purchaser of a car which is cleared by the Customs Department is not liable to pay redemption fine even if the car was under valued and the original importer is liable to pay the difference in duty. In what view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, liberty is reserved to the revenue to proceed against the original importer to recover difference in duty.