2009 (4) TMI 401 - HC - Customs

Import of motor vehicle used car misdeclaration confiscation - on examination of the car a Legend VOGUE, was found on the back side of the vehicle. Since the models VOGUE and COUNTY were different models, the customs authorities conducted a detailed examination of the vehicle Held that - there was a deliberate attempt to evade customs duty by misdeclaring a 2002 model vehicle as a 1998 model one. - The fact that the description of the vehicle and its registration papers do not conform to the vehicle actually imported, gives rise to grave suspicion with regard to the bona fides of the importer. The act of the appellant has violated not only the Customs Act but also the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Confiscation held as valid decided against the importer / appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order upholding confiscation of vehicle and penalty imposition.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and evasion of customs duty.
3. Request for re-export of the vehicle.

Issue 1: Challenge to order upholding confiscation of vehicle and penalty imposition:
The appellant challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upholding the confiscation of the vehicle sought to be imported and the penalty imposed. The appellant contended that the Tribunal disallowed his belated request for re-export of the vehicle without justification. The appellant, who had worked in Gulf countries, wanted to import a Range Rover Car under the Transfer of Residence scheme. However, discrepancies were found in the vehicle imported, leading to suspicions of misdeclaration and evasion of customs duty. The authorities confiscated the vehicle under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a fine and penalty on the appellant.

Issue 2: Allegations of misdeclaration and evasion of customs duty:
Upon examination at Cochin Port, discrepancies were found in the imported vehicle, indicating misdeclaration. Various parts showed a different model year than declared, and the registration documents did not match the actual vehicle. The appellant's statements revealed inconsistencies in the purchase and import process, raising suspicions of intentional misdeclaration to evade customs duty. Despite attempts to rectify the situation by producing additional invoices and seeking revaluation, the authorities found manipulations in the vehicle details and registration papers. The High Commissioner of India, U.K., was involved in verifying the authenticity of the documents, but inconclusive results led to the appellant's appeal for re-export being rejected.

Issue 3: Request for re-export of the vehicle:
The appellant sought permission to re-export the vehicle to Dubai, citing discrepancies in the valuation and denying deliberate misdeclaration or evasion of customs duty. The appellant argued that the authorities' valuation was excessive, and there was no intentional wrongdoing on his part. However, the authorities, after detailed consideration of evidence and circumstances, concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to evade customs duty through misdeclaration. The appellant's explanations were deemed insufficient, and the authorities upheld the confiscation of the vehicle, albeit reducing the redemption fine and penalty as a form of leniency. The request for re-export was ultimately rejected, and the appeal against the Tribunal's decision was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the authorities to confiscate the vehicle and impose penalties on the appellant for misdeclaration and evasion of customs duty. Despite the appellant's arguments of unintentional error and excessive valuation, the court found no infirmity in the authorities' actions. The appellant's request for re-export was denied, emphasizing the seriousness of customs violations and the need for strict enforcement of regulations.