Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 37 - HC - CustomsImport of Luxury car manufactured by Toyoto Company at Japan in the trade name of LEXUS - violation of Customs Regulations for fabricating and forging the import documents and misusing the Transfer of Residence Provisions for import of a passenger car - case of Revenue is that though the car was manufactured in the year 1994, they fraudulently declared as if it was manufactured in the year 1993 and was used by Dr. Balakrishnan (absconding accused) for a period of more than one year before the said import. Whether the trial court judgment bristles with legal and factual infirmities as submitted by the counsels appearing for the appellants? Held that:- The year of manufacturing of the said car is 1994 and not 1993 as found in the Customs Bill of Lading presented by the importer through his Clearing Agent at the time of clearing the vehicle on 8-9-1994. It is also admitted fact that the Custom duty for the import of the said car was paid from the Current Account No. 872 of M/s. Tamilarasi Publications Private Limited which was opened and operated by A-1 in the Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch, Chennai. The Bankers Pay Order is marked as Ex.P6. This is also not disputed by the appellants - After settling the Customs duty under KVS Scheme, the vehicle has been taken back by A-3 on 19-9-1994 under Ex.D6. Thus it is clear that the LEXUS car was imported in violation of Transfer of Residence Provisions for import of a passenger car. The settlement under KVS Scheme does not give any immunity to the appellants from prosecution under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Validity of reliance placed on the statements given by the accused persons in the DRI proceedings - case of appellant is that the proceedings under DRI literally been lifted by the CBI and photo copy of the documents collected by DRI had been marked without abiding the Law of Evidence. In the said course the statements given by the accused persons in the DRI proceedings had been relied upon by the prosecution to hold the accused guilty - Held that:- It is now well-settled that DRI, Income Tax and Customs Officials are not police officers and statement given to them are admissible in evidence. There is no bar in law to look at the statement of a person given to such officials when he is tried for offence under any other law. It is construed as previous statement given by him pertains to the offencce tried subsequently. For instance if a person gives statement to an Income Tax official under IT Act which discloses a cognizable offence to be investigated by police under IPC such confession statement which is in the nature of extra-judicial confession cannot be thrown out as inadmissible - the contention of the Learned Counsels for the appellants to reject the documents relied by the prosecution which was collected by DRI and the statements of the accused persons to DRI officials is not sustainable. Also, the prosecution has proved the charges positively whereas though the accused persons had opportunity to discharge the burden has not availed it, obviously they had no material. The brand new LEXUS car 3000 CC capacity had been imported to India totally in violation of the Customs Regulations - The Custom duty had not been paid from out of Foreign Inward Remittance but with the Indian Currency remitted into the account of A-1 and operated by A-2. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, is confirmed - appeal dismissed.
|