TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch in turn sold the car on 9 April, 1996 to Altaf Hussain. In the statements recorded by the investigating agency, Samiullah, the importer admitted that Altaf Hussain was his cousin; that he had said that he had not purchased the car in Dubai or registered it. He said that prior to his departure from Dubai he was approached by an unknown Indian who suggested that if he imported a car in terms of the Import Trade Control Policy, he would be paid Rs. 50,000/-. On his agreeing to do so he was given further details and copies of the papers relating to the car. After his arrival in India, he contacted the Customs House Agent Koladkar as he had been instructed. In other words, he, in essence, admitted that he had not owned or used the car in Dubai. 2. On the basis of these disclosers Customs issued notice proposing confiscation of the car and imposing penalty. The notice also made a ground that the odometer of the car had recorded only 53 kilometers and that therefore the car was not in the use of the appellant as provided in the public notice. The importer resisted the notice, contending that he had retracted his statement reiterating that he was the owner of the car and has use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1995 and its registration by Ajman Traffic Department on 25 January, 1995 should not be admitted. It is therefore contended that the car has been in the appellant's possession for a year abroad. It was claimed that the car was very sparingly used in order to qualify for the import and that the appellant mostly used another car which he owned. It was contended that the value should be on the basis of the certificate claimed to have been issued by M/s. Mitsubhishi Motors Corporation showing the value of the car at JY 19,00,000. The documents relied upon in the notice have been assailed on the ground that they were only photocopies and were not authenticated. 4. The notice relied upon the following documents in support of its contention : (a) Certificate issued by the Department of Ports and Customs dated 14 February, 1995 showing import of the car by Al Habtoor Motors Co. on 12 February, 1995. (b) Receipt dated 9 April, 1996 issued by Georgina Trading to Al Habtoor Motors Co. for 1,44,000 Dh. photocopy of which was authenticated by the Indian consul. Both the documents are photocopies. We are not in a position to say that the certificate were of the car and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under income-tax could be taken against him or preventive detention imposed on him. He does not appear to have taken steps in this direction. He has on the other hand again gone to the DRI office on the next day and again given a statement confirming the admission made on the previous day. 8. After 12 days the appellant did retract from his admission. Now the appellant could have found the same information on 6th June which he found later, on the basis of which he retracted his statement. There is no reason or explanation forthcoming as to why he chose not to do so. In the background of these events we are satisfied that the retraction of the statement of 7th June was not genuine. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary that corroboration is required of his statement. In coming to this conclusion we have been guided by the observation of the Supreme Court in K.I. Pavunni v. Asstt. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). 9. The public notice specifies that the car must have been in possession and use of the importer for more than a year. It is not the appellant's contention that the car was in somebody else's ownership and he was using it. It is contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to see how he applied the method of valuation in vogue in the Customs. He relies upon the price list of the manufacturer details of which he has not given. Examination of the relevant adjudication file of the Customs House during the hearing did not disclose the presence of any such documents. Copies of documents indicating the price of a Pajero car and some documents printed by Nippon Indo Translab have been found in the file. However, they are photocopies unsigned and unauthenticated and the Departmental Representative was not able to show as to how this can be considered to be price list of the manufacturer. We are unable to accept it as such. At the same time, the appellant was unable to produce the original of the documents stated to have been issued by Mitsubhishi Motor Corporation. It was claimed that it has been handed over to the officers of the DRI when the statement was recorded. Samiullah in his statement has admitted that the certificate was not addressed to him and that it was a fax message collected from Mitsubhishi show-room in Dubai. It would therefore not be correct to say that the original was produced by him. The certificate, since it is unauthenticated and a ph....