2003 (9) TMI 581 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the import of a Toyota Land Cruiser car.
2. Alleged unauthorized import and fraudulent activities.
3. Whether the stay application of the Revenue should be granted or rejected.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the import of a Toyota Land Cruiser car:
The central issue revolves around whether the import of the Toyota Land Cruiser car by the respondent was legal. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, had dropped proceedings under Sec. 111(d), 111(m), and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, concluding that the respondent had fulfilled the relevant conditions for import. The respondent had admitted to importing the car but later retracted his statement, claiming he had the means to purchase the car from a used car dealer in Dubai. The Commissioner found no evidence of a hawala transaction and noted that the "no sale" condition for two years was not violated as the car was under seizure.

2. Alleged unauthorized import and fraudulent activities:
The Revenue alleged that the car was imported unauthorizedly by Shri Aditya Singh using the respondent's name and through hawala payments. The investigation revealed documents indicating that the car was booked in the respondent's name by Shri Aditya Singh, who also provided the duty amount and offered Rs. 25,000/- as consideration. The Commissioner, however, found that the Department had not established the involvement of hawala transactions and that the respondent was a man of means, capable of purchasing the car. The Commissioner also noted that the Public Notice did not require possession of the car prior to importation.

3. Whether the stay application of the Revenue should be granted or rejected:
The Tribunal was divided on whether to grant the stay application filed by the Revenue. The Member (Judicial) argued that the Commissioner had considered all aspects, including the loan given by Shri Aditya Singh for paying the duty on the car, and found no prima facie grounds for absolute confiscation of the car. The Member (Technical), however, believed that the evidence suggested Shri Aditya Singh used the respondent to import the car and that the respondent did not meet the implied ownership condition of the Public Notice. The matter was referred to a third member, who concurred with the Member (Judicial), noting that the conditions of the policy were satisfied, and there was no evidence of foreign exchange remittance from India. The majority order rejected the stay application.

Separate Judgments:
- Member (Judicial): Rejected the stay application, stating that the Commissioner had considered all relevant aspects and the respondent had undertaken not to dispose of the car pending the appeal.
- Member (Technical): Supported the stay application, arguing that the respondent did not meet the implied ownership condition and that the car should not be released to an ineligible person.
- Third Member (Judicial): Concurred with the Member (Judicial), stating that the conditions of the policy were satisfied and there was no evidence of foreign exchange remittance from India. The stay application was rejected by majority order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, by majority, rejected the stay application of the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner's order to release the Toyota Land Cruiser car to the respondent, as the conditions for import were satisfied and no evidence of unauthorized foreign exchange remittance was found.