2005 (1) TMI 563 - AT - Customs

EXIM - Import of car - Ownership of - Evidence - Penalty - Quantum of - Adjudication - Jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of a used car in contravention of import policy.
2. Confiscation of the car and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Interpretation of PN 3/97-02 dated 31-3-1997 for car import.
4. Ownership and importer status of the car.
5. Jurisdiction of customs authorities at Chennai.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of a used Nissan Blue Bird car from Dubai to India in contravention of the import policy. The car was detained by customs authorities at Chennai port based on information regarding the violation. The appellant, Shri Hanumantha Yenkanna Gunda, disowned the import, stating he had not imported any car and had handed over his passport to another person upon arrival in India.

2. The customs authorities confiscated the car and imposed a fine of Rs. 4.00 lakhs along with a penalty of Rs. One lakh on Shri Hanumantha Yenkanna Gunda. The appellant appealed against this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The main contention in the appeal was whether Shri Hanumantha Yenkanna Gunda was entitled to import the car under PN 3/97-02 dated 31-3-1997. The appellant argued that he met the requirements for import as he had purchased the car in 1996, registered it in 1997, and possessed the necessary documents like the Registration Certificate and insurance in his name.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the ownership and importer status of the car, considering conflicting statements made by Shri Hanumantha Yenkanna Gunda. Despite a retraction of his initial statement disowning the import, the Tribunal found discrepancies in his claims, including lack of evidence to support the purchase transaction, financial capacity, and possession of a driving license.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were correct in determining that Shri Hanumantha Yenkanna Gunda was not the actual importer of the car. The car was deemed liable for confiscation, and the penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 25,000 due to lack of evidence showing malicious intent or financial gain.

6. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's objection regarding the jurisdiction of customs authorities at Chennai to adjudicate the case, stating that since the car had landed at Chennai in violation of the import policy, the authorities had the territorial jurisdiction to investigate and decide on the matter.

7. In summary, the Tribunal confirmed the confiscation of the car and the imposition of the redemption fine while reducing the penalty. The appeal was ultimately rejected, and the impugned order was upheld with the specified modification.