NARAYAN KURIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE COD application granted as the delay was attributed to the death of the Consultant who was engaged in the matter and the Miscellaneous application granted; after hearing for sometime, it was felt that the matter could be disposed of finally since a Bond has been executed at the time of provisional release of the car, further deposits were dispensed.

(2.) THE brief facts are : - The appellant was gainfully employed in owning a Tailoring establishment in UAE returned to India for permanent settlement, filed a Bill of Entry on 17 -4 -1997 to clear a Mercedes Benz Car imported along with Registration Booklet and Vehicle Export Certificate issued by the Traffic Department Umm -Al -Quwain and an affidavit. Based on these declaration, the car was released on payment of duty. However, subsequent enquiries conducted revealed that this car with the subject chassis number had been sold by M/s. Car Trade, Dubai vide invoice 1634, dated 31 -12 -1996 to a Pakistani national on 31 -12 -1996 to a price of DHS 1,97,000/ - which would indicate that the car was not in possession of the importer, the appellant herein on 31 -12 -1996 therefore the particulars submitted at the time of clearance were not correct and the car was imported in violation of Import Trade Control Restrictions and was seized from the possession of one Shri K.V. Ramana Shetty of Chennai even though the appellant had given a statement that he had purchased the car on 18 -12 -1995 for DHS 1,11,000 from M/s. Al Araf General Trading Company at Ajman, and was registered and even if he did not know driving or had a driving licence, the car shipped after his arrival should not be interdicted was not needed to and a SCN alleging short -levy on aspect of value, demanding differential duty and liability for confiscation under Section 111 (d) was issued. The learned Commissioner came to a conclusion that there were no grounds to come to enhance the assessable value and there was no case made out to charge duty and or interest (Para 18 of the Order -in -Original). However based on the same invoice dated 31 -12 -1996 of M/s. Car Trade, he came to a conclusion that the Government Registration Books & Certificates issued were forged and the car was imported in violation of Public Notice 3/97 and confiscated the same under Section 111(d) and imposed a penality of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a).

(3.) WE have considered the submissions after hearing both sides, we find : -