2003 (9) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Mitsubishi Vehicle Import, Importers Compliant with Public Notice

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus AQ SAYYED

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. It confirmed that the importers complied with the relevant Public ... EXIM - Car import - Evidence - Appreciation of - Import - Clearance - Evidence - Appreciation of Issues Involved:1. Unauthorized import of Mitsubishi vehicles.2. Compliance with Public Notice No. 202(PN) 1992-97.3. Discrepancies in documentation and misrepresentation.4. Ownership and possession of the vehicles.5. Validity of evidence and documents submitted by the Revenue.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Unauthorized import of Mitsubishi vehicles:The Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (SIIB) investigated the unauthorized import of Mitsubishi vehicles shipped from Dubai. It was found that 10 vehicles were imported in the name of various persons who neither had the money nor possession of the vehicles for one year. There was a dispute between the Dubai-based company and Standard & Chartered Bank regarding loan repayment, leading to the auction of these vehicles on 26-1-1995.2. Compliance with Public Notice No. 202(PN) 1992-97:The Show Cause Notices alleged that the vehicles could not have been in the importers' possession for more than one year, as required by Public Notice No. 202(PN) 1992-97. The original authority found that since the importers produced car registration certificates, insurance, and export permissions from UAE government departments, these documents could not be ignored and had to be relied upon. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, noting that the Department had not provided substantiated documents to the contrary.3. Discrepancies in documentation and misrepresentation:The Show Cause Notices cited discrepancies such as different addresses on the invoice/bill of lading and the importer's passport, misdeclaration of the address in India, and backdating of the invoice to mislead the Customs Department. The original authority found these discrepancies irrelevant, as the importers had methodically claimed ownership and produced valid documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, stating that the Department had not provided convincing evidence to prove the lower authority's order was infirm.4. Ownership and possession of the vehicles:The original authority noted that the bank documents were unauthenticated, and no bank officer had confirmed or denied the auction of the vehicles. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Department had not investigated thoroughly or produced sufficient evidence to challenge the importers' claims. The Tribunal concluded that the vehicles were registered in the importers' names and that the bank's repossession and auction did not disqualify the importers from importing the vehicles under the Public Notice.5. Validity of evidence and documents submitted by the Revenue:The Revenue's appeal argued that the Additional Commissioner had wrongly applied the full rigors of the Evidence Act and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in dismissing the Department's evidence. The Tribunal found that the fax from Standard & Chartered Bank did not conclusively prove the vehicles were not in the importers' possession for the required period. The Tribunal also noted that the export certificates and registration documents from UAE government departments were genuine and indicated the importers' ownership and permission to export the vehicles.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no grounds to upset the orders of the lower authorities. The appeals were rejected, confirming that the importers had complied with the relevant Public Notice and that the discrepancies and evidence presented by the Revenue were insufficient to deny the importers the benefit of the Public Notice.