1998 (7) TMI 648 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether penalty is imposable on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for wilful misstatement to Customs Authorities and clearing the Aircraft without payment of duty.
2. Interpretation of Rule 58(6)(a) and Rule 58(6)(b) of the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920.
3. Applicability of Section 111(o) and Section 111(f) of the Customs Act.
4. Whether the Aircraft is considered as "goods" under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act.
5. Validity of the bond and bank guarantee furnished by the appellants.
6. Whether the intention to register the Aircraft in India affects the duty-free clearance under Rule 58(6)(a).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The core issue is whether the appellant made a wilful misstatement to the Customs Authorities to clear the Aircraft without paying duty. The Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, holding that the appellants made a wilful misstatement and suppressed facts to get duty-free clearance. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had the intention to register the Aircraft in India, which was contrary to their declaration for duty-free clearance. Therefore, the penalty under Section 112(a) was justified but reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs considering the circumstances.

2. Interpretation of Rule 58(6)(a) and Rule 58(6)(b) of the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920:
Rule 58(6)(a) allows duty-free clearance for Aircraft not registered in India, intended for a flight to or across India, and to be removed within six months. Rule 58(6)(b) states that if the Aircraft is not removed within six months, duty must be paid before it is flown again. The appellant argued that these rules should be read together, suggesting that retention of the Aircraft beyond six months only triggers duty payment without penal consequences. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's intention to register the Aircraft in India from the beginning contradicted their declaration under Rule 58(6)(a).

3. Applicability of Section 111(o) and Section 111(f) of the Customs Act:
Section 111(o) pertains to the confiscation of goods for violating import conditions. The Commissioner found that the Aircraft was liable for confiscation under this section due to the violation of duty-free clearance conditions. Section 111(f) involves the requirement to file a manifest for dutiable goods. The Tribunal noted that the Aircraft was carrying spares and accessories, thus requiring a manifest. The appellant's failure to file a manifest was a contravention under Section 111(f).

4. Aircraft as "goods" under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal confirmed that the Aircraft qualifies as "goods" under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, referencing the Bombay High Court ruling in Union of India v. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd., which held that vessels are goods under the same section. This classification supported the requirement for filing a manifest and the applicability of Section 111(f).

5. Validity of the bond and bank guarantee:
The appellant argued that the bond and bank guarantee indicated the possibility of registering the Aircraft in India, thus informing the Customs authorities of their potential intention. However, the Tribunal found that these documents did not negate the initial misstatement regarding their intention not to register the Aircraft in India. The acceptance of the bond and duty payment by Customs did not sanction the non-observance of the condition under Rule 58(6)(a).

6. Intention to register the Aircraft in India:
The Tribunal emphasized that intention is judged by actions and circumstances. The appellant's correspondence and actions demonstrated a clear intention to register the Aircraft in India, contradicting their declaration for duty-free clearance. The Tribunal held that the appellants had a full intention to retain and register the Aircraft in India, justifying the imposition of a penalty.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected except for the modification of the penalty, which was reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner, confirming the appellant's intention to register the Aircraft in India and the consequent violation of duty-free clearance conditions under Rule 58(6)(a).

← Previous Next →