1990 (10) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of a Mercedes Benz car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
2. Alleged illicit import and retention of the car in India.
3. Discrepancy in engine numbers and chassis numbers of the car.
4. Lack of documentary evidence regarding the car's purchase and import.
5. Involvement of various individuals in the car's ownership and transfer.
6. Appellant's claim of moral obligation to pay for the car.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of the Mercedes Benz car
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the absolute confiscation of the Mercedes Benz car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The car was initially detained due to suspicions of it not being duly re-exported after being imported under Carnet facility. Investigations revealed discrepancies in the car's registration history, leading to the confiscation order by the Deputy Collector of Customs.

Issue 2: Alleged illicit import and retention
The investigations uncovered that the car's initial registration with RTO Hyderabad was fake, and no evidence was presented to prove its licit import. The appellant failed to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from RTO Hyderabad during the registration in Bombay, further raising suspicions of illicit import and retention, justifying the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in engine and chassis numbers
The appellant argued that discrepancies in engine numbers between the Carnet Register, seizure Panchanama, and RTO Registration Book indicated the car was not the same as the one imported under Carnet procedure. However, the Tribunal found the chassis numbers to be consistent, diminishing the significance of the engine number variance, ultimately concluding that the car was indeed the same as the one imported under Carnet.

Issue 4: Lack of documentary evidence
The appellant lacked documentary evidence regarding the car's purchase from STC and failed to provide any proof of legitimate import. The absence of clear evidence supporting the car's lawful importation strengthened the case for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

Issue 5: Involvement of individuals
Various individuals, including the appellant, Pravin Thakkar, Trilokchand Shah, and others, were involved in the ownership and transfer of the car. Statements and replies from these individuals were considered during the adjudication process, highlighting the complex ownership history of the car.

Issue 6: Appellant's moral obligation
The appellant claimed a moral obligation to pay for the car but had not yet paid the purchase price. Despite emphasizing this moral duty, the Tribunal found that without evidence of legitimate ownership or import, the claim of moral obligation did not absolve the appellant from the confiscation order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation of the Mercedes Benz car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act based on the evidence of illicit import and retention, lack of documentary proof, and inconsistencies in the appellant's claims and actions.