1999 (2) TMI 384 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absolute confiscation of five imported cars.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
3. Compliance with the transfer of residence scheme for import of cars.
4. Evaluation of evidentiary support for the bona fide ownership of the vehicles.
5. Examination of the procedural delays and alleged fraudulent intentions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Absolute Confiscation of Five Imported Cars:
The appeals challenge the Order-in-Appeal No. 53/98-Cus, which upheld the absolute confiscation of five cars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The cars, valued at Rs. 8,40,076/-, included four Honda Accords and one Toyota Corona.

2. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
Penalties were imposed on Shri Arvind Rao (Rs. 4,00,000/-) and Rs. 20,000/- each on five other appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the penalties were unjust as they were not the real owners but had sought the assistance of Shri Arvind Rao for importing the cars.

3. Compliance with the Transfer of Residence Scheme:
The appellants claimed that they met all conditions of the Public Notice No. 202/92-97, which governs the import of cars by persons transferring residence to India. The conditions included import of cars with engine capacity not exceeding 1600 CC, continuous stay abroad for at least two years, payment made abroad, and import within six months of arrival in India. The appellants argued that all conditions were met except for the Toyota Corona, which exceeded the engine capacity limit.

4. Evaluation of Evidentiary Support for Bona Fide Ownership:
The appellants presented additional evidence, including registration certificates and bank statements, to prove bona fide ownership. The certificates indicated that the cars were registered in the names of the respective appellants before shipment. Bank statements evidenced payments made to Shri Arvind Rao for services rendered. The Tribunal noted that these evidences were not considered by the lower authorities and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

5. Examination of Procedural Delays and Alleged Fraudulent Intentions:
The Department argued that the delay in clearing the cars and the initial Bill of Lading in the name of Shri Arvind Rao indicated fraudulent intentions. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay was due to the late receipt of necessary documents and that the appellants had provided substantial evidence to support their claims. The Tribunal also noted that the Department had not considered the evidences presented by the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and the order-in-original, remanding the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Customs for de novo consideration. The appellants were allowed to produce additional evidence regarding the purchase of the cars. The Tribunal directed that the Department should not auction or dispose of the vehicles until the de novo proceedings are completed. The proceedings were to be conducted expeditiously within four months from the date of the order. The appeals succeeded by way of remand.