M. CHINNADURAI AND K.L. BARNADRAJ Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same impugned Order -in -Original No. 17/99 (Commissioner) dated 22.7.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy whereby he has ordered confiscation of Land Rover Car and other household articles all valued at Rs. 26,71,200 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 besides penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on appellant M. Chinnadurai and Rs. 5 lakhs on other appellant viz. K.L. Barnadraj under Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Another person by name B.N. Rajmoghan who is not in appeal before us has also been imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on the basis of information about the misuse of Transfer of Residence facility in respect of goods imported by one Murugesan Chinnadurai (M. Chinnadurai) of Ogalur, Officers of DRI visited Ogalur and found that no person by that name lived in Ogalur. Since cargo intimation sent to the appellant was returned as the address could not be located, his contact number was obtained from Dubai where he was employed. However, one Bernardraj responded and stated that the consignment was actually meant for him and not for M. Chinnadurai. The said Barnard Raj also gave the possible time by which the cargo would be cleared. On 23.9.98 Bill of Entry and Baggage declaration were filed with the Tuticorin Customs. The DRI officers summoned the person who filed the said documents and who gave his name as M. Chinnadurai. Statement was obtained from the said Chinnadurai on 23.9.1998 and 24.9.1998 wherein he stated inter alia that he was working in Dubal from 10/93 as Labourer on a monthly salary of 600 Dirhams with M/s Besco International owned by Shri Bernard Raj and he came to India in May 1998 and he did not have any savings in the bank, did not purchase any car at Dubai and he neither knew driving nor was he having any driving licence and that he did not have the status or means to maintain a car. He also stated that he was told by his employer that he (Barnard Raj) would send some articles to India in his (Chinnadurai) name. He has further stated that the said Barnard Raj and one Shri Rajmohan of Anand Freight Overseas (P) Ltd., Tuticorin took his signature on certain documents stating that these papers were to be filled with the Customs. He further stated that the goods did not belong to him. Statement was also obtained from one Shri Angappan Assistant Manager of Anand Freight Overseas (P) Ltd. and power of attorney holder for Customs work who stated that he prepared necessary documents for clearance of car and household articles imported by M. Chinnadurai as per the details given by Rajmohan. The cargo was opened in the presence of the appellant M. Chinnadurai, Rajmohan, and Arumugam of M/s APL. Appellant M. Chinnadurai was not aware of the contents of the cargo. In the cargo one Car Land Rover alongwith manual showing owner's name as Mr. Barnardraj of M/s Besco International PB No. 32113 was found. The appellant had stated before the officers in the presence of independent witnesses that the said Shri Bernard Raj had sent these goods in his (M. Chinnadurai) name. Statement was also obtained from one Shri Madhusoodan Deputy General Manager of M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd. Tuticorin on 29.9.98 who stated that one Mr. Anil Chief Executive of M/s Baby Marine (Eastern Export), contacted him for clearance of the cargo and who also corroborated the statement of the appellant M. Chinnadurai about the ownership of the cargo. Since Shri Bernard] Raj did not respond to the summons Issued to him, he was confronted with a questionnaire and he gave a statement on 9.2.99 before the Consul, Consulate General of India Dubai wherein he had denied all connection with respect to the Import of cargo in the name of appellant M. Chinnadurai. In his further statement dated 23.2.99. M. Chinnadurai reiterated his earlier statement and further stated that the averments made by Bernard Raj was Incorrect. Proceedings were therefore initiated by Issue of show cause notice dated 16.3.99 against the appellants including Shri B.J. Rajmohan and the proceedings culminated In the present impugned order now appealed against.

(3.) Appellant M. Chinnadurai challenges the impugned order against confiscation of imported cargo and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on him while the other appellant Barnadra] challenges the impugned order imposing penalty on him.