1989 (9) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership and possession of the Toyota Car No. BCP-0112.
2. Validity of the mortgage and sale agreements.
3. Legality of the confiscation order and imposition of penalty.
4. Compliance with the procedural requirements in issuing the Show Cause Notice.
5. Consideration of evidence and statements by the Customs authorities.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Possession of the Toyota Car No. BCP-0112:

The appellant claimed ownership of the Toyota Car No. BCP-0112, which was seized by Customs Preventive staff on 23-11-1986 from M.G. Agarwala. The appellant contended that the car belonged to her late mother and was left for repairs at Assam Industries. However, the Customs authorities found documents suggesting a mortgage and a sale transaction involving the car. The appellant's claim of ownership was supported by a letter from the Regional Revenue & Customs Office, Gaylegphug, Bhutan, but the tribunal found that this letter was based on official records and did not consider the mortgage and sale agreements.

2. Validity of the Mortgage and Sale Agreements:

The tribunal examined two critical documents: a mortgage agreement dated 14-7-1982 and a sale deed agreement dated 17-3-1986. The mortgage agreement indicated that the appellant's late mother had mortgaged the car to Ram Awatar Agarwala for a loan of NU-42,000/-. The sale deed suggested a transaction between the appellant's mother and Ashok Kr. Moth. The tribunal found these documents to be valid and corroborated by the statement of the mechanic, Shri Phani Chakraborty, who had been repairing the car since 1982. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that these documents were not acted upon, considering it an afterthought.

3. Legality of the Confiscation Order and Imposition of Penalty:

The Additional Collector ordered the absolute confiscation of the car and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Ram Awatar Agarwala under Section 112B Clause (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal upheld this order, finding that the car was indeed in the possession of Ram Awatar Agarwala as a result of the mortgage agreement. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had not redeemed the mortgage, and the car was effectively transferred to an Indian national, justifying the confiscation.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements in Issuing the Show Cause Notice:

The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice was not in accordance with the law, as it contained charges under Section 3(1) of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the charges were properly framed, and the appellant's reply was considered. The tribunal also noted that while the charges against M.G. Agarwala were dropped, the penalty was imposed on Ram Awatar Agarwala, which was consistent with the evidence.

5. Consideration of Evidence and Statements by the Customs Authorities:

The tribunal carefully considered the evidence, including the statements of various individuals and the documents seized. The statement of Shri Phani Chakraborty was particularly significant, as it corroborated the continuous possession and repair of the car by Assam Industries since 1982. The tribunal also noted the dissimilarity in the appellant's signatures on different documents, raising doubts about the authenticity of her claims. The tribunal concluded that the evidence presented by the Customs authorities was credible and sufficient to justify the confiscation and penalty.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong. The tribunal found no grounds for interference, concluding that the car was rightfully confiscated and the penalty imposed was justified based on the evidence and legal provisions.

← Previous Next →