1998 (12) TMI 173 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation of the imported car.
2. Validity of the show cause notice and subsequent adjudication.
3. Applicability of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Appellant's negligence and conduct post-importation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Confiscation of the Imported Car:
The appellant imported a Ferrari car which was cleared through customs by Yogesh Mehra under a power of attorney. The car was later confiscated by customs authorities along with two other cars, alleging ITC violations. The appellant contended that the car was legally imported with a valid CCP and that absolute confiscation was not justified. The tribunal found that the appellant had indeed imported the car legally, and there was no evidence of misdeclaration or intent to transfer the car to Yogesh Mehra. The tribunal held that the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not justified in this case.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice and Subsequent Adjudication:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice and subsequent adjudication were not properly served and that the order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 clearing the car could not be questioned under Section 124 but only under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal noted that there was no material to show that the show cause notice was served on the appellant, and the department did not respond to the appellant's letter seeking clarification and release of the car. The tribunal found that the adjudication process was flawed and lacked proper service and communication, thus invalidating the proceedings.

3. Applicability of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contended that Section 111(d) was not applicable as the CCP was validly issued, and there was no violation of import conditions. The tribunal agreed, noting that the licensing authority had accepted the appellant's bond and acknowledged it. The tribunal referenced the case of CCE Trichy v. S.D.V. Rajkumar, which held that when goods are not found to be offending and the bill is genuine, no action is called for. The tribunal concluded that the confiscation under Section 111(d) was not applicable to the appellant's case.

4. Appellant's Negligence and Conduct Post-Importation:
The lower authorities had held that the appellant's negligence and unconcerned attitude towards the car post-importation were grounds for confiscation. The tribunal considered the appellant's circumstances, including the destruction of his family house and the killing of his father in the Delhi riots, which forced him to prioritize rebuilding his life. The tribunal found that these circumstances justified the appellant's lack of immediate concern for the car. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had taken active steps to import the car and had authorized Yogesh Mehra to handle customs formalities. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct did not warrant confiscation of the car.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that the confiscation of the car was not justified, the show cause notice and adjudication process were flawed, Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable, and the appellant's conduct post-importation did not warrant confiscation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief according to law.