2003 (7) TMI 227 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the car import and its ownership.
2. Compliance with ITC regulations and the Public Notice 3/1997-2002.
3. Validity of documents submitted for car clearance.
4. Liability for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Car Import and Its Ownership:
The Commissioner concluded that the vehicle did not belong to the importer, Shanavas, and he allowed his passport to be used for facilitating the illegal import of the car. This finding was based on the evidence that the car was imported using Shanavas's documents, although he admitted that the car did not belong to him. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Registration and Export Certificate documents issued by UAE authorities were not doubted or held to be fabricated, thus the vehicle was registered in Shanavas's name legally.

2. Compliance with ITC Regulations and the Public Notice 3/1997-2002:
The Tribunal found that the ownership of the car was not relevant under the Public Notice 3/1997-2002. The critical requirement was that the car should have been in use by the importer for more than a year prior to his return to India. Since the car was registered in Shanavas's name and the UAE documents were valid, the Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of the Public Notice, and thus, no grounds for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Validity of Documents Submitted for Car Clearance:
The Commissioner found that the clearance of the car was sought using false and fabricated documents, specifically questioning the affidavit notarized by Shri O.T. Kesavan Nambiar. The Tribunal, however, noted that the affidavit's validity was already in question by the Revenue, and since the ownership declaration was not required for the car's clearance, any misdeclaration regarding ownership did not warrant confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Liability for Confiscation Under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal determined that there was no cause for confiscation under Section 111(d) since the car's import complied with the relevant Public Notice. Similarly, since the ownership was not a necessary declaration, any misdeclaration did not justify confiscation under Section 111(m). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order for confiscation.

5. Imposition of Penalties Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellants:
For Shanavas, since the car was not liable for confiscation, there was no basis for a penalty under Section 112(a). Regarding Alex C. Joseph, the Tribunal referred to a previous case (Dr. Asha Sivasankara Pillai) where similar evidence from a search was deemed insufficient to impose penalties. The recovery of a car key and passport photocopies did not conclusively prove abetment in illegal importation. Thus, the Tribunal found no grounds for penalties under Section 112(a) for Alex C. Joseph.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders for confiscation of the car and the imposition of penalties on both appellants, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.