9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1.1998 based on the importer's declaration and the documents filed with the Bill of entry. The documents filed included the following (1) Invoice dated 12.11.1995 of M/s.Afghan Motor Co., Sharjah (U.A.E) issued in the name of the first respondent (2) Insurance Certificate dated 15.11.1995 issued to the first respondent by M/s. Umm AI Quwain Insurance Services (3) "Vehicle Export Certificate" dated 29.11.1997 issued by M/s.Umm AI Quwain Traffic Department to the first respondent (4) Private Vehicle Registration Book issued by M/s.Umm AI Quwain Traffic Department to the first respondent. 3. On specific intelligence that the said car was imported using false documents and was being used by one Abdul Razak, the DRI, Calicut directed the said Abdul Razak to produce the vehicle before them. On 22.2.2000 the said Abdul Razak produced the said vehicle and he was also subjected to a detailed examination. Consequently, the vehicle was seized under a Mahazar on the reasonable belief that the same was imported in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act 1962. The said Abdul razak in his statement made on 22.2.2000 before the DRI, Calicut, informed that he purchased the said vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, Chennai by holding that the car was liable to confiscation and as the same was provisionally released, he imposed redemption fine of Rs.4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on the said Abdul Razak and the first respondent herein respectively and also for enforcement of the P.D.Bond and bank guarantee executed at the time of provisional release of the vehicle. 5. Aggrieved against the said order-in-original, the first respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chennai. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the original authority through his order dated 30.5.2003, however, by reducing the penalty on the first respondent herein from Rs.60,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- . The first respondent herein preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 12.10.2004 the Tribunal set aside the order of the authorities below. Hence the present appeal is preferred before this Court by the Revenue by raising the above substantial questions of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in law and therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry to establish that those documents are not false or forged one. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the first respondent. 9. In this case, the issue involves in respect of import of a car and its ownership at the time of import. According to the Revenue, the said Abudl Razak was the purchaser and owner of the said vehicle from the foreign car company viz., Afghan Car Company, Sharja and not the first respondent. Contra to the said claim, the first respondent contends that he is the owner of the said vehicle and imported the same with valid documents inside this country. In support of their contention in fixing the ownership on the said Abdul Razak, the Revenue relied on receipt in No.0002 dated 18.11.1997 issued by the said foreign Car Company as well as his statement given on 22.2.2000 reconfirmed once again on 8.6.2000. On the other hand, the first respondent in support of his claim of ownership of the said vehicle, relied on the invoice dated 12.11.1995 , Insurance Certificate dated 15.11.1995 , Private Vehicle Registration Certificate, Vehicle Export Certificate dated 29.11.1997. In all those documents, the first respondent is shown as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the first respondent is the owner of the said vehicle by showing the registration date as 15.11.1995. A perusal of all these documents unambiguously indicate that the first respondent was the purchaser of the said vehicle and the same was purchased on 12.11.1995 itself and got registered on 15.11.1995 and thereafter exported to India under Bill of Entry dated 21.1.1998. 12. The Revenue, as found by the Tribunal, has not disproved these documents by placing any rebuttable evidence. On the other hand they relied on the receipt issued by the very same Afghan Car Company dated 18.11.1997 under receipt No. 002 . We have also perused the said receipt issued by the very same Car Company. The said receipt indicates that a sum of Rs.500 /- Dhs. was received as advance from the said Abdul Razak on 18.11.1997 out of the total price of 29,000/- Dhs. However, in the very same receipt further entries were made on 29.11.1997 as if a further sum 27,000/- Dhs was paid. If any such sum had been paid, the Car Company would have certainly issued a separate receipt instead of making entry in the very same receipt dated 18.11.1997, which appears to be very unusual. Therefore such entry raises some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, though retracted later is an admissible evidence and binding. Certainly, there is no quarrel about the said proposition. The admissibility of such statement as evidence is always there. However, the question is whether the authorities can act on such statement alone in the absence of any corroborating materials to substantiate the contents of such statement. Therefore, the admissibility of an evidence cannot and should not be taken to mean its acceptability as well. As we have already pointed out, the statement made by Abdul Razak, especially when retracted subsequently and reiterated the original statement thereafter, certainly raises a doubt with regard to the genuineness of its contents. Therefore, even though such statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence, the authorities are not necessarily bound to accept the same as such in the absence of further materials to substantiate the contents of such statement . Therefore, by applying the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reliance placed on those above two decisions by the Revenue will not help them in any way. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent importer cited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
