1979 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty exemption notification for repatriates.
2. Validity of petitioner's claim as the owner of the car.
3. Application of ownership period requirement for customs duty exemption.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of customs duty exemption notification for repatriates
The petitioner, a person of Indian origin and former resident of Kenya, claimed exemption from customs duty on a car imported to India under a notification dated April 6, 1972. The notification allowed exemption for goods imported by repatriates for permanent settlement under specific conditions. The key condition relevant to the petitioner's case was that the repatriate must have owned the car for at least one year before arriving in India. The court analyzed the wording of the notification and concluded that the ownership period requirement must be immediately prior to the repatriate's arrival in India. The court held that the department correctly interpreted the notification and applied the ownership condition strictly, denying the petitioner's claim for exemption.

Issue 2: Validity of petitioner's claim as the owner of the car
The petitioner claimed to have retired from a partnership firm in Kenya on December 31, 1971, and that the car in question was transferred to him on May 2, 1972. The petitioner argued that the car was allotted to his share upon retirement, relying on a declaration made by partners after a dispute arose with the customs department. However, the court found this declaration unreliable as it was obtained post-dispute. The court noted an earlier declaration which did not support the petitioner's claim of exclusive ownership on December 31, 1971. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could only claim ownership from May 2, 1972, and not earlier as contended.

Issue 3: Application of ownership period requirement for customs duty exemption
Even if the petitioner was considered the owner of the car from May 2, 1972, the court addressed the argument that the ownership period starting from July 1970 should be considered for claiming the exemption. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the notification required ownership for one year immediately before the arrival in India. The court held that the petitioner could not extend the ownership period beyond the stipulated one-year requirement. Therefore, the court upheld the department's decision to levy customs duty on the imported car.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the imposition of customs duty, ruling in favor of the department and holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption under the notification. The petition was rejected, and costs were awarded against the petitioner.