K. POOPALARAJAH Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS condonation of delay application has been filed in respect of the supplementary appeals filed by the appellant, as the learned lower authority had disposed of the issues arising in the two show cause notices. As per the procedure and practice of the Tribunal, the appellant was required to file the second appeal relating to the damaged goods. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

(2.) THE learned Sr. Counsel has pleaded that in the above appeals, the appellant had been given the option to clear the goods and he is therefore, not contesting the appeals on merits. Inasmuch as the appeals are not contested on merits, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

(3.) THE issue, therefore, survives for consideration is regarding the absolute confiscation of the car u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel briefly narrating the facts of the case has pleaded that the appellant had imported the car on 26 -10 -1989 under a Carnet which was valid upto 21 -10 -1990. He pleaded that the appellant could normally retain the car in India under Triptique Procedure in terms of savings Clause 11(m) of the Import Control Order without any import licence and without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 296/76, dated 2 -8 -1976. Under the said provisions, the appellant could retain the car for use in India temporarily for a period of six months and this period of six months could be extended by the proper authority for a further period of six months. He pleaded that the appellant before the expiry of the six months period approached the customs authorities for extending the period further and even subsequently he addressed the authorities in the matter including the Government of India. He pleaded that the appellant was not favoured with any reply until the date of expiry of the carnet period. In the meantime, the appellant had to go abroad and had sought for permission to do so leaving his other baggage goods in his flat. However, the car was surrendered to the authorities on 22 -10 -1990 immediately after the expiry of the carnet period and with the knowledge of the authorities the car was garaged at the premises of one C. Ramachandran at Anna Nagar. It so transpired that the appellant was not favoured with the explanation and the authorities took over the car on 10 -5 -1991 and proceedings against the appellant were drawn resulting in the confiscation of the car absolutely. He pleaded that the appellant had come before the authorities with clean hands and being a tourist was not aware of the regulations and in all earnestness he pursued the matter for extension with the authorities. He pleaded that no one informed him that he could not retain the car beyond six months and he requested for extension of period of retention. He pleaded that the appellant inadvertently violated the conditions of import under carnet and kept the car with him until 21 -10 -1990 when the car was given under the constructive possession by surrendering of the keys of the car to the authorities and garaged at the premises of Shri Ramachandran. However, it is a matter of record that the appellant was diligent in pursuing the matter of extension and the learned lower authority also in his order has taken note of the bona fides of the appellant and has refrained from levying any penalty on him inspite of the charge held against the appellant. The charge was more technical in nature. While he concedes that in the facts and circumstances since there has been a technical violation on account of retention of the car by the appellant without getting the extension from the proper authority, he is not contesting the confiscability of the car. However, he pleaded that the absolute confiscation of the car is very harsh and is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He pleaded that in the normal course, the appellant would have re -exported the car after the expiry of the validity of carnet period and prayed for option to redeem the car for re -export, on a suitable fine.