1988 (9) TMI 230 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and compliance of Carnet-de-Passages for vehicle importation.
2. Mis-declaration and registration of vehicles.
3. Justification for confiscation and imposition of penalties.
4. Legitimacy of Customs authority's suspicion and actions.
5. Appropriateness of reshipment destination and penalties imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Compliance of Carnet-de-Passages for Vehicle Importation:
The appellant, a British national, imported two vehicles under the Carnet-de-Passages system. The vehicles were shipped from Dubai, and the Carnets were issued by the authority in the Netherlands. The vehicles did not bear any registration numbers, which was a requirement under the Carnet system. The appellant argued that registration was not obligatory under the Import Policy or the Import Control Order, but the tribunal held that the vehicles must correspond in all respects with those described in the Carnets, including registration numbers. The tribunal emphasized that the Carnet system, originating from the Geneva Convention, mandates that vehicles should be registered and that the Carnet should specify the registration number and country of registration.

2. Mis-declaration and Registration of Vehicles:
The appellant admitted to a mis-declaration regarding the registration of the vehicles. The tribunal noted that the vehicles imported did not correspond with the Carnets as they lacked registration numbers. The appellant contended that he was misled by the Dubai party regarding the registration, but the tribunal found this explanation unconvincing, noting that the appellant had visited Dubai and should have verified the registration status.

3. Justification for Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties:
The Additional Collector ordered the confiscation of the vehicles but allowed reshipment to the UK on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The tribunal upheld the confiscation order, stating that the vehicles did not meet the statutory requirements under the Imports (Control) Order and the Exemption Notification No. 296. However, the tribunal modified the order to allow reshipment to Dubai instead of the UK, recognizing that this would cause less hardship to the appellant.

4. Legitimacy of Customs Authority's Suspicion and Actions:
The tribunal found that the Customs authority had reasonable grounds for suspicion due to the appellant's previous import activities and the discrepancies in the vehicle registration. The tribunal noted that the appellant and his wife had previously imported vehicles under the Carnet system and should have been aware of the registration requirements. The tribunal held that the Customs authority's actions were justified and based on facts, not mere suspicion.

5. Appropriateness of Reshipment Destination and Penalties Imposed:
The tribunal agreed with the appellant's request to allow reshipment to Dubai instead of the UK, modifying the Additional Collector's order accordingly. The tribunal also set aside the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, concluding that the appellant's conduct did not warrant such a penalty. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's previous vehicles had been re-exported, and there was no contumacious conduct requiring a penalty.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected with a modification allowing reshipment to Dubai on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was set aside. The appellant was granted two weeks to exercise the option for reshipment.