1992 (7) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of principles of natural justice.
2. Liability of the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Evidence of tampering with the car model number.
4. Financial capability and involvement of the appellant in the importation of the car.
5. Validity of the show cause notice issued under Section 112.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that there was a denial of natural justice because the full correspondence relating to the enquiry done abroad regarding the sale and shipment of the car was not made available. The appellant specifically referred to letters exchanged between the Collector of Customs, Bangalore, and the D.R.I., as well as the Indian High Commission. The Departmental representative provided some of these documents during the proceedings but maintained that internal correspondence could not be disclosed. The tribunal found that the essential documents had been provided, and the information contained in these documents did not materially affect the penal proceedings against the appellant.

2. Liability of the Appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The tribunal examined whether the appellant, Shri S.M. Walhekar, was responsible for the importation of the car using Shri S.G. Thakur's name. The tribunal found that Shri Thakur, who had limited means and technical knowledge, could not have financed or managed the importation of an expensive car like the Mercedes Benz. The investigation revealed that all documents for clearance were handled by Shri Walhekar, and the address provided in the Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) was that of Shri Walhekar's office. The tribunal concluded that Shri Walhekar was the actual person behind the importation and upheld the penalty under Section 112(b)(i).

3. Evidence of Tampering with the Car Model Number:
The car bore the model number 280 SEL, but the letter 'L' had been crudely removed to make it appear as 280 SE, which matched the CCP. The tribunal found that the tampering indicated an intention to deceive customs authorities. The appellant's argument that the letter 'L' could have detached on its own was not accepted. The tribunal noted that the appellant had no opportunity to tamper with the car during shipment or before its opening by customs authorities, but the overall evidence pointed towards his involvement.

4. Financial Capability and Involvement of the Appellant in the Importation of the Car:
Shri S.G. Thakur's financial background and statements indicated that he could not have afforded or managed the importation of the car. The tribunal found that Shri Thakur's involvement was limited to signing documents at the behest of Shri Walhekar, who had the financial means and interest in the car. The appellant's role in handing over the documents to the clearing agents and the use of his office address in the CCP further corroborated his involvement.

5. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued under Section 112:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was under Section 112(a) or 112(b). The tribunal held that the absence of such specification was not fatal to the case as the circumstances and reasons for the penalty were clearly set out, and the appellant was aware of the charges against him. The tribunal rejected this plea.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, Shri S.M. Walhekar, was responsible for the importation of the car. The penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, was upheld. However, considering the absolute confiscation of the car and the circumstances, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000. The appeal was otherwise rejected.

← Previous Next →