1989 (9) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and confiscation of the Toyota Corona Car.
2. Alleged illegal importation and possession of the car.
3. Validity of the sale transaction of the car.
4. Compliance with the Import Export Control Act and Customs Act.
5. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure and Confiscation of the Toyota Corona Car:
The car, a Toyota Corona from Japan, was seized by Customs Preventive Staff on 26-6-1986 from Shri Hemraj Agarwalla in Guwahati. The seizure was based on the belief that the car was procured in violation of Section 3(1) of the Import Export Control Act, 1947, read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The car was allegedly brought to India by Mrs. C.S. Lama of Bhutan for repairs, and the registration book indicated it belonged to Major Lala Bahadur of Bhutan.

2. Alleged Illegal Importation and Possession of the Car:
A Show Cause Notice was issued to Shri Hemraj Agarwalla, Mrs. C.S. Lama, and Major L.B. Sunuwar, accusing them of illegal importation and possession of the car, violating Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Import (Control) Order No. 17/55. The notice alleged that the car was acquired in violation of the Import Export Control Act, rendering it liable for confiscation.

3. Validity of the Sale Transaction of the Car:
The appellants contended that Major L.B. Sunuwar remained the owner of the car and it was only brought to Shri Hemraj Agarwalla for repairs. They argued that there was no evidence of a sale transaction. The learned Additional Collector's finding of a sale was based on presumptions and minor contradictions in statements, which the appellants argued were insufficient to prove a sale. The Collector's inference that several parts of the car were of Indian origin was also challenged as being speculative and not based on expert evidence.

4. Compliance with the Import Export Control Act and Customs Act:
The appellants argued that the car was brought to India for repairs, which is permissible under the agreement between the Governments of West Bengal and Assam. The agreement allowed Bhutanese vehicles to ply temporarily in India for personal duties, business transactions, and repairs. The Collector's conclusion that the car was sold to Shri Hemraj Agarwalla was based on conjecture and not supported by concrete evidence.

5. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
The Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000 each on Mrs. C.S. Lama and Shri Hemraj Agarwalla. The appellants argued that the penalties were unwarranted as there was no proof of illegal importation or sale. The Tribunal found that the Collector's conclusions were based on suspicion rather than proof, and the penalties were not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Shri Hemraj Agarwalla had purchased the car. The explanations provided by the appellants were plausible and not unreasonable. The Tribunal noted that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The letter from the Director of the Royal Government of Bhutan supported the claim that the car belonged to Major L.B. Sunuwar and was brought to India for repairs. The Tribunal concluded that the Collector's findings were based on surmises and presumptions, not reliable evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the release of the car to Major L.B. Sunuwar and set aside the penalties imposed on Shri Hemraj Agarwalla.