TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fy the veracity of the declaration in regard to the model of the car and the price paid. The appellant inter alia stated through the FAX message that he has purchased the vehicle second-hand from an Arab seller and the invoice, RC Book etc. were handed over by the Arab seller. The authorities noticed discrepancy between the statement made by the appellant and the particulars entered in the Invoice, RC Book etc. and proceeded to make further enquiries in the matter. Statement was recorded from the appellant and he has stated that the vehicle was purchased in July, 1991 when he was in Dubai and the payment was made in July, 1990 partly by cash payment and partly by adjustment of the dues by a fish-broker. The appellant could not explain that when he had made the payment in July, 1990 and taken the delivery of the vehicle in 1991, how the invoice for the purchase of the car was dated 14-1-1988 and the registration was dated 15-1-1988. He pleaded that he took the papers namely the Invoice, R.C. Book etc. on the understanding that these were done in his name by the said Arab from whom he has stated to have purchased the vehicle. He was also confronted by the authorities with the informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y subject to the condition that the vehicle had been in use of the importer abroad at least for a period of one year prior to its return to India. It, therefore, appeared taking into consideration the year of manufacture of the car, the date of arrival of the passenger in India and also the date of sale of the vehicle in Dubai i.e. 9-7-1991 that the vehicle had been used before shipment for 45 days only. The appellant was therefore charged for mis-declaration of the year of manufacture of the car and also its value with an intention to evade payment of duty by filing fictitious documents and also the importation of the car in violation of ITC Public Notice 197/91, dated 16-8-1991. Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act were invoked and also Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked for penalty. After taking into consideration the appellant's pleas and the evidence on record, the learned lower authority confiscated the vehicle valued at Rs. 6,79,252/- absolutely under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the appellant. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellant pleaded that the appellant had purchased the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the authorities that the car was purchased in July, 1991 when he was in Dubai and he had paid 70,000 Dirhams. Having said that it is not understandable how the appellant could claim that the car was in his possession and use for one year. After the purchase of the car by him before shipment, the car was in his hands only for 45 days. He had also declared the value of the car as 58,500 Dirhams as against 70,000 Dirhams having been paid by him. But for the alertness of the Customs Authorities the appellant would have got away with his mis-declaration in regard to the year of manufacture of the car and also the value. It is also seen in the statement of one Shri T.K. Kuppiah, who is a car broker, that at the instance of somebody, one Mr. Asgar Ali in Dubai who had sent him the documents, RC Book etc., he had approached the clearing agencies for the clearance of the car. The appellant obviously was not in possession of even the documents. It appears as if it was somebody else who was interested in clearing the car as it is not the claim of the appellant that the car had been imported for his use and the learned Consultant has submitted that the car had been imported for sale with a pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were for his own benefit of clearance through customs without licence and the documents have been shown by the department as unreliable and incorrect by overwhelming evidence against the same. It has also been mentioned by the counsel in this connection that the invoice dated 9-7-1991 was not even made available by the importer and he had no knowledge of the same. I, however, find from the show cause notice that a specific reference has been made to this invoice in para 11 of the show cause notice and a copy of the invoice has been marked as Annexure `N' to this show cause notice issued to the importer. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the importer was totally ignorant about the whole affairs and yet made a claim for clearance of the car in a manner beneficial to him. For the same reason, it is also not correct to hold that the importer has been a victim of the circumstances. In fact, the importer himself has admitted the position that impugned car is of 1991 make. All these facts and circumstances bear out the incorrectness and the fictitious nature of the documents like the invoice, R.C. Book etc., filed for the clearance of the goods through Customs.". We would like ....