2011 (9) TMI 507 - AT - Customs

Assesseee engaged in buying & Selling of Second Hands Car - Cars were wrongly smuggled into India in name of Other Persons who were not the owners to avail wrong T.R facility - Held That - When statements were recorded under the provisions of Sec.108 of the Customs Act voluntarily in his own handwiting and he was not subjected to any force, coercion. Penalty sustained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misuse of Transfer of Residence Rules for smuggling cars.
2. Allegations of forming a syndicate for importing cars in the name of eligible passengers.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellants by the Commissioner of Customs.
4. Retraction of statements by one of the appellants.
5. Consistency in the Commissioner's findings.

Issue 1: Misuse of Transfer of Residence Rules for smuggling cars
The appellants filed appeals against the Commissioner's order following a remand direction from the Tribunal. The case involved the smuggling of cars of foreign origin by misusing the Transfer of Residence Rules. The syndicate, including the appellants, imported cars in the name of eligible passengers to avail TR facilities. The Commissioner found that the TR facility was misused, leading to the imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Issue 2: Allegations of forming a syndicate for importing cars in the name of eligible passengers
The syndicate, comprising the appellants and others, formed a company to import cars in the name of Indian passengers eligible for TR facilities. The scheme involved using passengers' names to import cars, arranging payments through illegal channels, and selling the cars in the market. The Commissioner found that the appellants were the masterminds behind this operation, manipulating the TR provisions to facilitate car imports.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on the appellants by the Commissioner of Customs
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellants for their involvement in the car import scheme. The appellants challenged the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the passengers were bona fide importers and that reliance on statements, especially from a retracted confession, was unjust. However, the Commissioner upheld the penalties, citing the active roles played by the appellants in the import and clearance of cars.

Issue 4: Retraction of statements by one of the appellants
One of the appellants retracted his statements given before the Customs authorities. The Commissioner analyzed the retraction issue, concluding that the retraction was baseless and that the statements were voluntarily provided. The Commissioner found the retraction did not affect the liability of the appellants, as their active involvement in the import scheme was established.

Issue 5: Consistency in the Commissioner's findings
The appellants raised concerns about inconsistencies in the Commissioner's findings, particularly regarding the exoneration of another individual and the differential treatment of redemption fines for imported cars. The Commissioner clarified that the current appeal did not involve the exoneration of the other individual and focused on the penalties imposed on the appellants. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants.

The judgment highlights the misuse of Transfer of Residence Rules for smuggling cars, the formation of a syndicate to import cars in passengers' names, the imposition of penalties on the appellants, the retraction of statements by one of the appellants, and the consistency in the Commissioner's findings. Despite the appellants' arguments and citing of legal cases, the Commissioner's decision to penalize the appellants for their active involvement in the car import scheme was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.