TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 134764 had entered the Indo-Pakistan Land Customs Border at Attari Road, Amritsar in a Toyota Crown Car (chassis No. 133-003851-Registration No. 15405 - Year and Model No. 1988). He filed Bill of Entry No. 135/91, dated 9-2-1991 seeking clearance of the vehicle without payment of Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990 under which Motor Cars when imported into India by Indian Repatriates from Iraq or Kuwait through the Land Customs Station at Attari, Amritsar were exempt from the whole of the duty of Customs liable thereon subject to the conditions contained in the notification. The Customs authorities detained the said vehicle on the basis of prior intelligence report that a group of persons was importing cars on forged documents. On examination of the Registration Book and other documents it was revealed that the said car was registered in the name of Shri Ajaib Singh and not in the name of Shri Harinder Singh and the Regn. No. 3842 registered in Kuwait was in the name of Shri Ajaib Singh. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 24-6-1991 was issued alleging that the impugned vehicle had been imported in contravention of the provisions of the Imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and the vehicle had been in his use for at least one year prior to his return to India. Collector found that the appellant Shri Harinder Singh had not produced Customs Clearance Permit issued by the Import Trade Control Authorities nor he had shown any evidence that he had applied for grant of such customs clearance permit. Collector therefore found that the import of the said car was unauthorised and the allegation of contravention of the Imports (Control) Order read with prohibitions imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act stood established against the appellant Shri Harinder Singh. Collector also held that the vehicle had become liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. As regards the claim of appellant that he had fulfilled the conditions of exemption Notification No. 258/90, Collector observed that though in the Registration Book the number of the vehicle was shown as 3842 and issued in the name of Shri Harinder Singh, Bill of Entry No. 135/91, dated 9-2-1991 showed its registration No. as 15405 of Iraq. Besides, the letter dated 8-1-1991 issued by the Indian Embassy in Baghdad (Iraq) showed that the car bearing Regn. No. 3842 of Kuwait (impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order Nos. C-773-777/96-B, in which the back ground for issue of Notification No. 258/90, dated 23-10-1990 had been referred to. On more or less similar facts, the Tribunal by majority had set aside the absolute confiscation of the vehicles. The penalties imposed on the importers were also waived and the importers were allowed to clear the cars on payment of redemption fines. As regards the allegation that the impugned Toyota Crown Car was not in the name of appellant Shri Harinder Singh, but in the name of Shri Ajaib Singh, ld. Consultant submitted that initially the vehicle was registered with the Government of Kuwait with Regn. No. 3842 on 21-5-1988. He pointed out that the date of registration mentioned in the Show Cause Notice viz., 31-5-1988 was not correct. As per the practice followed by the Kuwait Authorities no registration of vehicle was possible unless the vehicle itself was presented before the Registering Authorities. After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the Iraqi Authorities had directed that all the vehicles should be got registered again and the appellant had to obtain fresh registration from the Iraqi authorities in Kuwait and a fresh Registration Book was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole ground for alleging suppression of facts or mis-declaration, when Shri Ajaib Singh had admitted that the letter was written by him under a mistaken notion. Besides, the Department had placed reliance on an opinion given by a certain expert as to the year of manufacture of the vehicle. The said expert opinion had been taken behind the back of the appellant and the appellant was not provided any opportunity to rebut the said opinion. No reliance could therefore be placed on such expert opinion, contended ld. Consultant. 5. Ld. JDR, Shri Panchatcharam reiterating the findings of the Collector submitted that the appellant had not disputed the fact that he had not followed the procedure for import of cars by Indian Nationals returning to India for permanent settlement under para 135 of the Import and Export Policy - 1990-1993. Contravention of the prohibitions of Imports (Control) Order read with Section 11 of the Customs Act was therefore clearly established. The claim of the appellant that the Indian Embassy letter showing Shri Ajaib Singh as the owner of Toyota Crown Car with Regn. No. 3842 should not be relied upon on the plea that there was pressure of work in the Embass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h translation at page 10-11 of appeal No. C/93/B2), Shri Harinder Singh had stated that he had got the impugned Toyota Crown Car from a Pakistani citizen, Shri Abdul Rahman, in 1989 and it was registered in his (Harinder Singh s) name in 1989. He had also stated that the original Registration No. in Kuwait was 15405 and the model was of 1988. The Collector in the impugned order had brushed aside the contention of the appellant that Shri Ajaib Singh had wrongly indicated in his letter to the Indian Embassy in Baghdad that the car belongs to him and that there was a mix up in the Regn. No. of the cars. We feel that the contention of the appellant that because of the abnormal situation prevailing in Kuwait and Baghdad at the material time and the difficulties experienced by the large number of repatriates and the Indian Embassy in Baghdad in processing the huge number of applications for permission to travel by land should have been taken note of by the Collector and should not have been brushed aside summarily. In the face of the Registration Book produced by appellant showing Shri Harinder Singh as the owner of Toyota Crown Car bearing Regn. No. 3842, the further certificate from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By the impugned order Mercedes Benz Car (Regn. No. 15381 - Model 1983 - Chassis No. 12322312128881) was ordered to be confiscated absolutely and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on appellant Shri Ajaib Singh Sethi, among others. 11. The appellant s case is that he was not concerned in any manner with the said car and that the agreement dated 24-12-1990 between him and Shri Harinder Singh for purchase of the said car was an agreement signed during a drinking session and the said agreement has been cancelled on the very next morning. This fact according to appellant was corroborated both by S/Shri Harinder Singh and Ajaib Singh in their subsequent statements to the Customs Officers. It was submitted that the finding of the Collector that appellant Shri Ajaib Singh had connived with Smt. Ravinder Kohli and Shri Harinder Singh in the unauthorised import of the car was not based on any evidence. Further, ld. Consultant also submitted that though originally appellant Shri Ajaib Singh had agreed to the suggestion of Shri Harinder Singh and Smt. Ravinder Kohli to purchase the said car, when he came to know that only one car could be taken to India, the idea was dropped and the agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n permitted only the import of one car duty free per family. However, it was prayed that the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on Smt. Ravinder Kohli may be set aside and the order of absolute confiscation of the Mercedes Benz Car may be modified giving appellant Smt. Ravinder Kohli an option to redeem the car on payment of appropriate redemption fine. 16. Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue drew our attention to the fact that there was no evidence on record to show that Appellant Smt. Ravinder Kohli was the owner of the said car. Even otherwise, the appellant Smt. Ravinder Kohli could not claim the benefit of Exemption Notification 258/90 since the said notification allowed duty free import of only one car, per family, and since Shri Harinder Singh, her husband had also imported a car and claimed exemption. The claim of the appellant Smt. Ravinder Kohli therefore for duty exemption for import could not be allowed. Further, since the appellant had filed a Bill of Entry and the contravention of the provisions of the Imports Control Order prohibiting import of cars without import licence or customs clearance permit had been clearly established, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
