The monk who sold his Ferrari

[Mariyam]

The World T20 championship would be an example of an established contest. If we start from the premise that laws are there to protect us from the worser aspects of human nature. And if I had to argue against the granting of exemptions for the 15 odd Mini Coopers. I would argue what if these Minis were part of a deal to reacquire them once they are in India and then were sold to the general public by the Brit Indian's Indian business partner. The Mini being imported now start at 25L after duty. 15 duty-free Minis would be a considerable loss to the GOI. And once that is done, the Brit Indian could then wait for the next Hockey, Olympic and Cricket victory overseas to repeat his deal. I would suggest that in all such special cases of duty-free imports, the beneficiary has to keep the item for his or her personal use for a stipulated period.

True. The part in bold could be the case even with Ravi Shastri. Even he could sell his car once in India, and one can argue, for the sake of arguing, that the whole set up ( i.e Audi officially awarding the car) was with a view of avoiding high Indian import duties. :sherlock: These laws are not formulated ex ante, keeping a possible future crime in mind. If the 15 mini coopers were sold as you say, the players and their agents should face the music. But that wasn't even my question. Suppose the Brit Indian has no ulterior motive in gifting the cars. Would you, in moral terms, exempt the excise then?

[Prakat]

Firstly, how would one go about determining the absence of ulterior motive? Secondly, if we let this go, why shouldn't I, for instance, be exempt of duty for any item I declare was a gift upon reentering the country? I can arrange for a letter from the gifter and a signed invoice proving the sale of the item was in someone else's name. As for the Audi-Shastri one, it was just one car and the car was a prize offered by one of the sponsors of the tournament which was to go to somebody whose identity was unknown at the time the prize was announced. This makes it very different from ad hoc prizes by random patrons which are announced post facto.

[Prakat]

These laws are not formulated ex ante, keeping a possible future crime in mind.

Also in the scenario we were discussing, I was not arguing for a new law but against the non-application of existing laws for a particular case.

[Mariyam]

Firstly' date=' how would one go about determining the absence of ulterior motive? [/quote'] Very difficult, I admit. But that isn't the arguement here. When I buy a knife the shopkeeper doesn't know whether I'm going to cut vegetables with it or attempt a genocide :P etc Do we assume the worst and cast laws keeping the worst case scenario in mind? There is a difference. You are not given the gift for representing your country. You are being given the gift because of your friendship with the gifter . Sachin's Ferrari, although a gift, was in lieu of some kind of sporting excellence.

[Prakat]

Very difficult, I admit. But that isn't the arguement here. When I buy a knife the shopkeeper doesn't know whether I'm going to cut vegetables with it or attempt a genocide :P etc Do we assume the worst and cast laws keeping the worst case scenario in mind?

You're rubbishing my point by stretching it to an absurdity :) Buying a knife or a gas cylinder or a ball of twine are not special cases - as the one we have at hand.

There is a difference. You are not given the gift for representing your country. You are being given the gift because of your friendship with the gifter . Sachin's Ferrari' date=' although a gift, was in lieu of some kind of sporting excellence.[/quote'] Technically, and since we are discussing laws and their application here, the Indian cricket team is selected and paid by the BCCI, which is a private body and is registered as a society and as such has no connection with the govt. of India. The Indian team "represent" India only nominally, insofar as, a Miss India (A Bennett, Coleman and Co. property) represents India. Only sportsmen selected by the IOC, 'represent India', in the fullness of what the phrase implies. Secondly, I would say that you are using the words 'in lieu' rather loosely. How is the gifter in any way required to give the gift? He/she/the company also, does not represent the country in any way that would justify the giving of a gift in recognition of a valuable service to the nation. And once the gift is given, and the giver is not representing the country, and the recipient isn't really representing the country, then how is this scenario any different from what I get from someone as a gift and want to bring it into the country without paying the import duty for it?

[Cricketics]

I liked the thread. Don't know I have anything to add here in this thread, but just stopped by to say that you might have lot of views and not many replies in this thread because I have shared this link in couple of communities and hence they might have browsed this thread as "Guest".