2015 (12) TMI 1144 - AT - Customs

Appellant held liable for imported car despite innocence plea, ordered to pay fine. Procedural efficiency emphasized.

The tribunal found the appellant liable for the imported car despite claiming innocence. Evidence linking the appellant to individuals involved in the ... Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA - Held that:- The vehicle before reaching to India was first registered in U.K. and was deregistered thereafter to give an impression to Customs that the said vehicle was new. The motive behind such act is well known to the commonsense - no one can buy a foreign vehicle just casually. Sumit Walia cannot be ruled out to be unknown to the appellant. So also Tarun Kumar does not appear to be unknown to the appellant, when both the persons came to the scene were not unknown to the appellant, he cannot claim innocence being a buyer of Mercedes Benz GL 320 Cdi car came from England. The authority has recorded that vehicle was first registered in the name of Tarun Kumar with registration No. DL4CAV1366 and subsequently within 17 days that was transferred to the appellant. That Registration was supported by indemnity bond to immune Customs duty in the event there is a loss. When the bond was executed the appellant was fully aware about the history of the vehicle. - Bank account was opened in the HDFC and Standard Chartered Banks to deal with the transaction. Tarun Kumar was middleman between Sumit Walia and appellant, it has also come to record that the appellant’s approach to buy the foreign vehicle was not a sudden decision. - Assessee directed to make a pre deposit - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Liability of the appellant for the car imported by others.2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Evidence of appellant's involvement in the import process.4. Requirement of deposit by the appellant.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability of the appellant for the car imported by othersThe appellant claimed innocence regarding the import of the car, stating that he was not involved in the misdeclaration and was unaware of the import process. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant purchased a foreign vehicle that had a suspicious history of being registered in the UK before reaching India. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant could not be considered innocent merely as a buyer, especially when the vehicle's registration was transferred to him within a short period after being registered in someone else's name.Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine and penaltyThe tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the involvement of individuals like Sumit Walia and Tarun Kumar in the import process. The appellant's association with these individuals, as well as the transfer of vehicle registration and execution of an indemnity bond, indicated his awareness of the vehicle's history and import process. Based on these material facts, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe.Issue 3: Evidence of appellant's involvementThe tribunal highlighted the connections between the appellant, Sumit Walia, Tarun Kumar, and others involved in importing cars to India. The tribunal found that the appellant's decision to purchase the foreign vehicle was not sudden and that there was a structured process involving bank accounts and intermediaries. This evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant was not merely an innocent buyer but had knowledge of the import process and the vehicle's history.Issue 4: Requirement of deposit by the appellantIn light of the evidence and findings, the tribunal directed the appellant to make a significant deposit within a specified timeframe. The tribunal expressed surprise at the registry's practice of listing appeals in a piecemeal manner, especially when multiple parties were involved in common adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the need to ensure procedural efficiency and protect the revenue's interests in such cases.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the tribunal's assessment of the appellant's liability, the imposition of penalties, the evidence of involvement, and the directive for a deposit, providing a comprehensive overview of the key issues addressed in the legal decision.