1999 (5) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of car by a foreign national married to an Indian national for permanent settlement.
2. Compliance with conditions of Public Notice No. 3/97.
3. Confiscation of car due to alleged unauthorized import.

Issue 1: Import of car by a foreign national married to an Indian national for permanent settlement
The appellant, a United States citizen, came to India on a visa valid for three months, attending a relative's marriage. Subsequently, she married an Indian national and declared her intention to permanently settle in India and imported a car in accordance with Public Notice No. 3/97. The Customs authorities alleged that her entry was not initially for permanent settlement, leading to a notice proposing confiscation of the car. The Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the public notice, ordering confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine.

Issue 2: Compliance with conditions of Public Notice No. 3/97
The appellant's representative argued that the appellant's continued stay in India was under prescribed conditions beyond her control, as she lacked the means to change her visa terms. The appellant's marriage to an Indian national supported her intention for permanent settlement, with no allegation of a contrived marriage for benefits. However, the appellant initially arrived without intending to settle permanently, planning to return to the United States after attending a marriage. The requirement of intending to settle down in India when importing the car was not met initially, although the appellant was granted a ten-year residence permit later. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this aspect, leading to a technical non-compliance with the public notice.

Issue 3: Confiscation of car due to alleged unauthorized import
Despite the technical non-compliance with the public notice, the appellant's genuine intention for settlement, continued residence in India, and incurring demurrage on the car were considered. The Tribunal found that these factors, along with the absence of justifying reasons for confiscation, led to allowing the appeal and setting aside the confiscation order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the order of confiscation due to the appellant's genuine intention for settlement, continued residence in India, and the absence of justifying reasons for confiscation despite technical non-compliance with the public notice conditions.