9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 3.5 lakhs has also been imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had sought clearance of the car under OGL and had filed the Bill of Entry showing the model of the vehicle as 1988 and registration on 15-1-1988 in Dubai and the vehicle sale sheet dated 14-1-1988 showed the value as 58,500 UAE Dirhams. The authorities made enquiries to verify the veracity of the declaration in regard to the model of the car and the price paid. The appellant inter alia stated through the FAX message that he has purchased the vehicle second-hand from an Arab seller and the invoice, RC Book etc. were handed over by the Arab seller. The authorities noticed discrepancy between the statement made by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho requested him to help his neighbour for the clearance of the vehicle, and that he had only prepared the affidavit etc. which was signed by the appellant and it was handed over to the Customs Authorities. M/s. Land Rover, England, the manufacturers of the vehicle stated that the vehicle in question was manufactured in the year 1991. The dealers of the vehicle M/s. Al Tayer Motors Pvt. Ltd. also confirmed to the authorities, on enquiries made by them, that the vehicle had been sold to one Mr. Mohammed Salim Khan in Dubai on 9-7-1991 and not to the appellant and that the model of the vehicle was 1991 and that the Invoice No. 0500 dated 14-1-1988 which had been submitted by the appellant with the Bill of Entry was, on check by them, found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also its value with an intention to evade payment of duty by filing fictitious documents and also the importation of the car in violation of ITC Public Notice 197/91, dated 16-8-1991. Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act were invoked and also Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked for penalty. After taking into consideration the appellant s pleas and the evidence on record, the learned lower authority confiscated the vehicle valued at Rs. 6,79,252/- absolutely under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the appellant. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellant pleaded that the appellant had purchased the car from a middle-man and left for India after makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant had not challenged the evidence cited against him. The plea of the appellant is that he had started making payment for the car from July, 1990 and the final payment was made in July, 1991 and in good faith produced the documents which were given to him by the seller of the car. We observe that the appellant when filing the Bill of Entry and claiming the benefit of OGL clearly gave out that the car was in use abroad for one year, a requirement for import under OGL and the value of the car declared by him was as per the Invoice produced which was also found to be fictitious and also that the car was registered in 1988. The appellant has tried to present himself as a victim of circumstance. We however, find that the position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the car was sold by the dealer of the car in Dubai only on 9-7-1991 under the Invoice No. 001185 to one Mr. Mohammed Salim Khan. As its value as fixed by the authorities is not contested before us, on analysis of evidence on record, what emerges is that the appellant had in a very organised manner tried to dupe the Customs Authorities by producing false RC Book, Registration Papers, Export Certificate, Invoice and....... endorse the declaration and filed an Affidavit as to the correctness of these documents. The learned lower authority has highlighted the result of the enquiries made in his order and the same, for convenience of reference, is reproduced below : Enquiries conducted by the department with both the above supplier and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments have been shown by the department as unreliable and incorrect by overwhelming evidence against the same. It has also been mentioned by the counsel in this connection that the invoice dated 9-7-1991 was not even made available by the importer and he had no knowledge of the same. I, however, find from the show cause notice that a specific reference has been made to this invoice in para 11 of the show cause notice and a copy of the invoice has been marked as Annexure `N to this show cause notice issued to the importer. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the importer was totally ignorant about the whole affairs and yet made a claim for clearance of the car in a manner beneficial to him. For the same reason, it is also not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
