1997 (9) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Possession and use of the imported car for one year.
2. Retracted statement by the appellant.
3. Valuation of the imported car.
4. Confiscation and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Possession and Use of the Imported Car for One Year:
The appellant claimed the clearance of a Pajero Mitsubishi car under Public Notice No. 202/PN/92-97, asserting that the car had been in his use abroad for more than a year. However, the Department's investigation revealed that the car was imported into Dubai on 14 February 1995 by Al Habtoor Motors Co., sold to Georgina Trading, and then to Altaf Hussain on 9 April 1996. The appellant admitted that he had not purchased or registered the car in Dubai and was approached by an unknown Indian to import the car for Rs. 50,000/-. The Commissioner found that the car was not in the appellant's possession for a year, relying on the odometer reading of 53 kilometers, and thus held the car liable to confiscation.

2. Retracted Statement by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that his statement given on 6 June 1995, admitting non-ownership and non-use of the car in Dubai, was retracted on 19 June 1995 due to fear of retaliatory action by the officers. The Tribunal noted the 12-day delay in retraction without satisfactory explanation, concluding that the retraction was not genuine. The appellant's claim of being threatened by officers was not substantiated, and he had the opportunity to seek legal advice but did not do so. The Tribunal, guided by the Supreme Court's observation in K.I. Pavunni v. Asstt. Collector, found the retraction unconvincing and upheld the original statement.

3. Valuation of the Imported Car:
The Commissioner did not accept the valuation proposed in the notice, which lacked the engine number and corroboration from Georgina Trading. He determined the value based on the manufacturer's price list, deducting 15% and adding freight and insurance, arriving at a value of Rs. 11,62,817. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the Commissioner's reliance on documents and the absence of authenticated price lists. Both the appellant and the Department failed to produce authenticated documents from Mitsubishi Motors Corporation. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to reassess the car's value using contemporaneous import records, manufacturer price lists, or recognized trade journals.

4. Confiscation and Penalty:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the car, concluding that the appellant did not satisfactorily establish possession and use for more than a year. The appellant was also found liable for a penalty for attempting to import the car knowing it did not meet the minimum possession and use requirement. The quantum of penalty and redemption fine was contingent on the car's reassessed value. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to adjudicate the case expeditiously and provide the importer an opportunity for a personal hearing regarding the proposed valuation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed by way of remand for reassessment of the car's value. The liability to confiscation and penalty was confirmed, with the quantum of penalty and redemption fine to be determined after the reassessment.