9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Shri Sundar Rajan stated that a case was made by the DRI that there was a conspiracy to import car in violation of the EXIM Policy. However, the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order dropped the proceedings against Shri Ajith Kumar and Shri Alex C. Joseph who were supposed to be parties to the conspiracy. In that case, he said that the case against his client Shri Abdul Latheef would not stand. Further, he informed the Bench that the appellant was employed at Sharjah for more than eight years. On 14-4-1997, he purchased one BMW 325TD Model Car (1993 Model) which was registered on 21-1-1996 in the name of Mohammed Riaz Sultan, a Pakistani national. He invited our attention to the sale receipt 14-4-1997 and a private registration book a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs adjudicated the case on 5-5-2000. Adequate opportunity was not given to the appellants to contest the allegations. He held that the appellant was working merely as a driver on a salary of 1200 dirhams and could not have sufficient savings to buy a BMW car of 2500 cc and use the same over one year. He recorded that the date of clearance certificate and registration certificate did not tally and hence, the certificates did not appear to be acceptable. He has stated that even though the statement was recorded on 8-12-1998, the same has been retracted after issue of show cause notice. He confiscated the car and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakh. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakh on the appellant. The Commissioner (A) up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... triction on the sale of imported car and the allegation that the car was imported for some other person was not sustainable. 5. The learned departmental representative stated that the car which is imported cannot be sold immediately. In this case, the car has been sold within a year from the date of import. This is also a violation of the EXIM Policy. Therefore, he stated that the vehicle is liable for confiscation and penalty on the appellant should be upheld. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The contention of the learned advocate that just because the proceedings against two other persons were dropped, the case against the appellant would not stand is not acceptable. In order to examine whether the penalty ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Thiruvalla, met him in his house, that he was informed by Sri Rajan that a car would arrive, within a month, from Dubai in his name, that Sri Rajan collected his passport copy, that he gave him telephone number of M/s. P.T. Varghese Co., Custom House Agent at Cochin, that he contacted Sri P.T. Varghese of P.T. Varghese Co., over phone regarding his unaccompanied baggage booked by him from Dubai, that Sri. Varghese had extended his help for clearance of same, that at that time he enquired about the car mentioned by Sri Rajan of Thiruvalla, that Sri. Varghese told him that the car has not arrived yet and he would be informed about it, that when his baggage came, he was informed of its arrival and arranged clearance of it by M/s. P.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration book (v) vehicle clearance certificate (vi) Fax BMW AG, Munich, dated. 14-8-98 and (vii) pass book No. NRE A/c. No. C 4815. 5.1 Although his statement has been retracted there is corroboration in the statement of K.I. George given on 25-9-1999. The role of the appellant in the import has been confirmed by K.I. George M/s. P.T. Varghese and Co. This is brought out in Para 10 of the Show Cause Notice. In terms of the Public Notice relating to import of cars, the following conditions should be satisfied. (i) the payment of the vehicle is made abroad, (ii) the payment of the customs duty is made in foreign exchange, (iii) the conditions specified against each category of eligible importers are fulfilled and (iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and name for the import of car. By doing so, the appellant abetted the improper importation. The car is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m). The appellant cannot say that he is innocent. He had given a statement that for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- he had lent his name and passport. From the wealth of details given in his statements, we cannot accept the appellant's contention that it was given under duress. In any case, his role has been confirmed by Shri K.I. George, Manager of M/s. P.T. Varghese Co. In these circumstances, we have no other option but to uphold the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
