Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The further submissions of Shri Patel was that in his order the Addl. Collector has observed that the appellant being a resident of UK he should normally apply for carnet in UK and for registration of vehicle in UK. But the cars were directly shipped from Dubai without being registered at Dubai and thereby violated the procedure of carnet which clearly lays down that the vehicle has to be identified with registration number of the vehicle. Shri Patel submitted that it was not the requirement of carnet system that a British National should obtain carnet only in Britain or that the vehicle to be covered by carnet should be registered in UK only. Therefore, that part of the Addl. Collector's order was again irrelevant in considering the question of violation of the Import Control Order. Shri Patel also submitted that the Addl. Collector has further observed in his order that the appellant had not explained as to why he required 2 vehicles when only his wife had accompanied him. Shri Patel contended that it is not the number of members which is relevant. The appellant had orally explained that he was to proceed to Nepal where he was expecting others from abroad and hence the necessity for 2 vehicles. Shri Patel further submitted that the Federation of India Automobile Association, Bombay had issued a certificate granting guarantee for the vehicle being driven by the wife of the appellant. In the said circumstance and particularly when there was no restriction as to the number of vehicles that could be brought under Carnet system the Addl. Collector committed an error in taking into consideration the Import of 2 vehicles.

12. Shri Mondal appearing for the Collector while fully supporting the order of the Addl. Collector submitted that there was every justification for the department to suspect the bonafide of the import. He submitted that the appellant being a British National it would have been easier for him to obtain the carnets there and no explanation is forthcoming as to why he approached the FIAA at Netherlands. He further submitted that the carnets produced contained the particulars of the vehicles including the registration number. The registration Nos.are CHT 304V and CHT305V. But then, the imported vehicles did not bare any registration number. Further, in the invoice produced the appellant was described as M/s. William Murphy India. That was not the name and address of the appellant. Shri Mondal contended that in the guise of availing the facility under carnet system 2 new vehicles were imported which were not even registered at Dubai from where they were shipped. Shri Mondal also contended that the appellant was required to give a declaration. He did declare that the vehicles had registration numbers. In fact they did not bear any registration number and therefore the Addl. Collector was wholly justified in holding that there was mis-declaration by the appellant. Shri Mondal further submitted that in order to avail of the benefit of Not. No. 296 dated 2-8-1976 the vehicles imported should correspond in all resect with those described in the Tryptyque/Carnet- de-Passage En-Douance. Shri Mondal urged that the Carnets produced contained the registration numbers of the vehicles but the vehicles imported did not bear the registration numbers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicles imported correspond in all respect with those described in the carnets. He urged that the above requirement is a statutory requirement. He submitted that the learned advocates' contention that the Addl. Collector relied on the executive instruction as to the registration and there has no statutory requirements is wholly incorrect. Shri Mondal further submitted that the importation of the vehicle under carnet system was in pursuance of Geneva Convention which was approved and accepted and rectified by the Government subject to some modification. According to the articles of the convention the vehicle to be imported should be in the private use during the temporary visit by the owner of the vehicle and before the import it should be in the possession of the importer and it should be registered in his name. It is because of this requirement the carnet contained the registration numbers. Shri Mondal also submitted that the appellant's explanation that it was the responsibility of the Dubai supplier to get the registration cannot be accepted since the requirement of registration would not be legitimate function of the seller but it would be the obligation of the buyer. In order to get the registration one should reside in the country atleast temporarily. According to the passport entry of the appellant before the shipment of the vehicles he had not visited Dubai but on the other hand he visited Dubai around 22/23-6-1988 and he would have known whether the vehicles were registered or not when he made a declaration by production of the carnets. But he made a mis-declaration. Shri Mondal submitted that since the vehicles were not covered by the carnets produced, the duty liability would be Rs.16.5 lakhs. Even then, the Addl. Collector shown a concession and allowed reshipment on a paltry sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

(1) . . .

(2) the provisions of the said notification or of the Triptyque' or 'Carnet-De-Passage' permit are not contravened in relation to such vehicles or component parts;

failing which the provisions of this Order shall apply to such vehicles or component parts and such vehicles or components shall be deemed to be goods the imports of which has been prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962."

26. The notification No. 296 which exempts from payment of customs duty in respect of vehicles which are imported under Carnet specifies certain conditions: Among other things the importer should satisfy the proper officer that the vehicles and component parts, which he has imported) correspond in all respects with those decribed in the Triptyque or Carnets-De-Passages-En-Douane and for this purpose produce the said vehicles and component parts for examination and record of particulars, by such officer. Thus it is clear that the vehicle imported should correspond in all respect with those described in the Carnet.

27. The appellant had produced two Carnets in respect of two station wagons imported by him. While giving the description of the vehicles, the country of registration as well as the registration numbers were given in the Carnets. But then, the imported vehicles did not bear the registration numbers at all. Therefore, Shri Mondal was justified in contending that there was no scope to grant exemption from payment of duty since the vehicles did not correspond in all respect with those described in the Carnets. Shri Patel was not right in contending that the requirement of registration is not a statutory requirement either under the Imports (Control) Order or under the Exemption Notification No. 296. The benefit of Imports (Control) Order as well as the benefit of the Exemption Notification from payment of customs duty would be available only to those vehicles which correspond in all respects with those described in the Carnet. The Customs, therefore, could confiscate the vehicles in question since on a material aspect they do not correspond with the description contained in the Carnets. As observed by me earlier, it is not all vehicles that are brought by a foreign tourist which are allowed to be imported without payment of duty or without insisting upon the requirements of Imports (Control) Regulations. But it is only these vehicles in respect of which Carnets are issued that are allowed the above concessions.