9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Appellant, vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 2. Pursuant to the information that the subject car imported into India under Carnet facility in the year 1982-83, was not duly re-exported, and was in possession and use of the appellant, the same was ordered detention on 27-3-1989. The said car at that time stood registered in the name of the appellant with the Regional Transport Authorities at Bombay. The investigations however revealed that originally, the said car was shown as registered with RTO Hyderabad in the name of one Hanif Kaifiji Sheikh of Hyderabad, under Registration No. ABR 5371. However, further investigations also revealed that said registration was a fake one, as the said Registration number was allotted to one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was paid by his father, said Pravin Thakkar suggested to get the car transferred in his name at Hyderabad itself and therefore, took his signature on blank transfer form and then brought back the registration book, showing the car to have been transferred to him, and that thereafter in 1983, he moved for transferring the same Registration from Hyderabad to Bombay. Statement of Abdul Majeed was also recorded, who admitted to have introduced the appellant to Pravin Thakkar but pleaded no further knowledge about the deal. Though summons were sent to Trilokchand Shah and Hanif Kaifiji Sheikh, to appear with relevant documents if any, there was no response from them. Mr. Pravin Thakkar was reported to have died in 1983 and as such the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants preferred an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the said Order and at the personal hearing appeared with CHA Mr. M.I. Khatri, and pleaded that the car did not belong to him because he had not yet paid money, and that the car was got transferred to his name on the suggestion made by said Pravin Thakkar. The appellant seems to have contended before the said Appellate Authority that he was filing appeal since it was his moral obligation to make the payments for the car to the heirs of deceased Pravin Thakkar and pleaded that the payment was withheld till all the relevant papers regarding its purchase from STC were delivered. The Appellate Authority, after considering all the submissions made before him as also the eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cured or produced any documentary evidence in this regard nor has he brought any evidence to indicate that he ever made any efforts, since the date of its purchase, to verify that aspect. 7. Mr. Khatri invited our attention to the Panchanama of seizure drawn on 2-5-1989, indicating that the engine number mentioned therein is 6170160180-G and Chassis number is WDB-123-130-2225 1057, whereas in the Carnet Register the engine number is 61791222 135880 and Chassis number is 123 2225 1057 and pleaded that as the engine number is distinct, the subject car cannot be the same as the car imported under the said Carnet procedure. The appellant has, however also produced the copy of the duplicate of the Registration Book issued by RTO Bombay, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llied completely with the one in the RTO Registration Book and the number in Car-net Register was entirely different. We do not have on record the original Carnet Certificate but only the entry made in the Register and from what is discussed hereabove, a strong probability exists that at every stage, the human error has crept in. The difference in engine number is therefore reduced to insignificance, particularly when the chassis number is correct and tallies. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the subject car is the same as imported under the Carnet procedure. We may once again observe that no evidence is adduced by the Appellant to show that the subject car could have been a licitly imported one. The contentions raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut here, the appellant has emphasised that so far he has not even paid the purchase price, and has pleaded that it was his moral obligation to pay the same as and when demanded by the heirs of late Mr. Pravin Thakkar. When the sale price has not been paid, the appellant could not have any personal interest in the vehicle and when the vehicle is not proved to have been licitly imported, and is confiscated on the said ground, the question of moral obligation and fulfilment thereof does not arise, as it would provide an absolute and genuine defence against any such demand. Under these circumstances we do not deem this as a fit case to exercise discretion invested under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 12. When the appellant has taken a consis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
