Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 100 - AT - CustomsPlea of innocence - Mis-declaration of goods imported and defrauded customs - Chassis number, engine number and year of manufacture were tampered and fabricated to impress the customs that the year of manufacture was much earlier and used before import and therefore, the imported car was second hand one. Also appellant was the facilitator of import and paid the duty for Maqsood Ali at the time of clearance of the car and was also discharged the loan of ₹ 33 lakhs taken from ICICI Bank by Maqsood Ali Marbhoobali to purchase the vehicle for import - Held that:- Appellant was conduit in the entire import process and illicit deal of loan repayment. He was actively involved in the import as well as subsequent transfer of the title over the car. Fabrication of the engine number, chassis number and year of the manufacture defrauded customs demonstrating that the import car was second hand and was in use abroad prior to import. But investigation result discarded that. Appellate finding is that the appellant is a defacto importer and also was a financier and was conduit in the entire process mis-declaration of import consciously and deliberately. The repayment of the loan by the appellant along with Jilani Khasim Sahikh proved their mutual interest and organised bid to defraud Customs. They were all beneficiary of the ill gain from the import investing in the offending vehicle. Maqsood Ali Marbhoobali hided his identity and disappeared form investigation to hide the racket and money trail. Material facts on record proved the pre-meditated design of the appellant. He was abettor of misdeclaration and defrauding customs. Mis-declaration resulted in evasion of duty. Therefore, differential duty of ₹ 11,48,670/- was realized. That was paid by the appellant. For the involvement of the appellant in the racket, he suffered penalty of ₹ 11,48,670/-. Therefore, appellant's deliberate, conscious active involvement as well as collusion, cannot be ruled out and proved to be non-innocent. - decided against the appellant
|