9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "no sale for a period of 2 years" stipulated in the Public Notice No.3(RE2000) 19972000 dated 31st March, 2000 does not imply that the importer should be owner of the vehicle and hence there is no violation of the provisions stipulated in the Public Notice? " Factual Matrix : 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that one M/s.Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt.Ltd., CHA filed bill of entry on 13th February, 2001 on behalf of the respondent for clearance of one Toyota Cynos car under transfer of residence, claiming benefit of Public Notice No.3(RE2000) 19972002 dated 31st March, 2000, relevant part of which reads as under: " In exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 4.11 of the Export and Import Policy, 19972002, and in supersession of Public No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d neither used any vehicle in Dubai nor had imported any vehicle in India and explained that after one week of his arrival in India one Tukaram and Srinivas came to him and asked him to permit them to import some light bulbs from Dubai by using his passport; that he agreed to their proposal for monetary consideration of Rs.5,000/and, ultimately, according to him, his passport and signatures were misused by them for importing Toyota Cynos car in India. He, thus, submits that except signing some papers and documents as directed by S/Shri Tukaram and Srinivas for some monetary consideration he did not take part in importing the car. 4. The Customs acting upon his explanation chose to issue show cause notice. In reply to the show causenotice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty assessed thereon. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Revenue has invoked appellate jurisdiction of this Court to canvass the question of law extracted hereinabove. 8. In spite of notice, respondent did not appear. Mr.S.N.Kantawala was requested to act as Amicus Curiae. Consideration : 9. Heard Mr.Jelty, learned counsel for the appellantRevenue and Mr.Kantawala, Amicus Curiae. Both, in unequivocal terms, submits that the impugned order ofthe Tribunal is perverse as such liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. The public notice produced on record was issued in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 4.11 of the Export and Import Policy, 19972002 laying down the procedure for import of cars and automobile v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f two years during his continuous stay abroad and should continue to be the owner for next two years after importation of vehicle in India. The findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) read as under: "v) Contrary to the Ld.Consultant's claim that there is no corroborative evidence, and hence the passenger's statement cannot be used, I observed that there are independent facts on record, which clearly corroborate the said statement. The facts revealed by the passenger in his statement that he was not the owner of the car and nor had he imported the car, get corroboration from the Cancellation Registration Certificate of the said car, issued by the Japanese Transport Authorities. This Cancellation Certificate indicates that the registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt recorded under section 108 of the Act; wherein he has clearly admitted that his passport was misused by someone. It was clearly an attempt on the part of the Tribunal to adopt perverse approach. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
14. We place our appreciation on record for the valuable assistance given by Mr.Kantawala as Amicus Curiae.
15. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The orderinoriginal and orderinappeal are restored. Question of law framed is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The appellantRevenue shall take immediate steps to take custody of the vehicle and recover fine. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
