9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that was sought to be imported by the appellant and imposing penalty on him have been upheld. The appellant had made a belated request for re-export of the vehicle, which also has been disallowed by the Tribunal, without any justification whatsoever, it is contended. The appeal is filed in the following facts and circumstances. 2. The appellant had been working in the Gulf countries for about eight years. Thereafter, he has returned to India. At the time of his return to India he wanted to import a Range Rover Car. He entrusted M/s. Al Wafrah Used Cars, Sharjah to arrange the shipment of a Range Rover Car for him. The car offered by them was a 1998 model Range Cover County. The car was imported for the personal use of the appellant. As pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted was silver in colour. The vehicle registration documents V5 submitted by the importer for clearance of the car showed that the car was registered as new in 1998 in the name of one Mr. T. Singh of Birmingham as a Range Rover County. The documents did not support the physical verification, which showed that the vehicle was a Range Rover Vogue with tell tale indications that it was a 2002 model vehicle. The misdeclaration has obviously been done with the object of evading customs duty payable under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the vehicle was seized on 2-1-2006 by the customs authorities. 4. It is alleged by the customs authorities that the documents presented by the appellant were created with the object of legitimising the misdecla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat many of the parts of the car imported by him were showing time clocks of 2002, that the back portion of the same had VOGUE written on it etc. According to him he had placed the order for a 1998 model car and did not know why a different model had been despatched. Subsequently the appellant gave a further statement on 17-2-2006 where he has stated that as per information received from his cousin Rafique he had come to know that the vehicle that was shipped, was actually a 2002 model Range Rover VOGUE, that the vehicle was purchased from U.K since vehicles were available there for lower prices, that Rafique had made an additional payment of USD 9,000/- towards price of the vehicle, since the same was a later model. Later, the appellant pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he may be allowed to clear the car at the invoice value of USD 26,500 or in the alternative he may be allowed to re-export the car to Dubai. After hearing the appellant's counsel, an order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs confiscating the vehicle under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, the appellant was given an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also imposed. 7. The appellant challenged the said order evidenced herein by Annexure E in Customs Appeal No. 279/2006 before the CESTAT. Before the Tribunal the appellant contended that various documents relied on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered in detail and the vehicle imported by the appellant was confiscated by the Commissioner as per order dated 17-12-2007, evidenced herein by Annexure M. However he has allowed redemption of the car on payment of the applicable duty of Rs. 35,92,375/-, a fine of Rs. 6 lakhs and also a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 9. The said order was challenged by the appellant in appeal No. C/303/2008 before the CESTAT. The Tribunal heard the matter, considered the various contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant and by Annexure N order dated 12-1-2009 has disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 4 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The request of the appellant to re-export the vehicle has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On a careful perusal of the orders of the Commissioner of Customs evidenced herein by Annexure (L) and that of the CESTAT evidenced herein by Annexure (N), it is evident that the said authorities have elaborately considered the contentions of the appellant. They have also considered each and every item of evidence and each of the incriminating circumstances available against the appellant. All the relevant documents have been adverted to in detail and considered in extenso. We do not find any infirmity in the manner of consideration of the authorities below. It is to be noted that, in the present case there was a deliberate attempt to evade customs duty by misdeclaring a 2002 model vehicle as a 1998 model one. Though there is no evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
