The Hindu Business Line : Cruiser in jeep's clothing

A TOYOTA Land Cruiser was imported in the name of one Simon Pavoo Paliekara, a storekeeper in Dubai, informs the text of the Mumbai tribunal's order in a recently reported case, Mahendra Kumra Kate vs Commissioner of Customs. Simon was in no position to import any car, let alone a Toyota Land Cruiser, one learns. "But he was an NRI (it is sometime better to be a non-resident Indian than a Resident Indian)," notes the tribunal member M. Moheb Ali, packing his ruling with his interesting observations.

An NRI can import a car, when he returns homeward, if he was in possession of one while working abroad, informs Moheb Ali. However, being `a mere storekeeper', Paliekara was `never in possession of any such car'. Someone seemed to have suggested that a car could still by imported in his name if he agreed to lend his name, according to the surmise of the tribunal.

Yet, to the storekeeper's misfortune, the department got the wind of it. "To make the story short, the car was confiscated and penalty was imposed on the hapless store keeper. In addition, penalties were imposed on the clerks of the Custom House Agent (CHA) firm that filed the Bills of Entry for clearing the car. A penalty of Rs 2 lakh was imposed on Rajesh Krishna Anujan, one of the clerks of the CHA, under Section 112 of the Customs Act." However, Anujan got the penalty set aside when he went on appeal before the tribunal.

Now, who is Kate? He is another clerk in the CHA. "The Commissioner of Customs Mumbai imposed a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on him, no less. He is consistent," observes Moheb Ali. The Commissioner had said that Mahendra Kumar Kate (the appellant) and Rajesh Krishna Anjuan (the person on whom a similar penalty was imposed and set side by the tribunal) had told Paliekara to claim the jeep. "Why should they give such advice? They being representative of CHA should have inquired before filing customs documents for clearance of vehicle," the Commissioner had said.

"Left to him the Commissioner would impose a penalty on anyone who as much as winked at or shook hands with the store keeper Paliekara," remarked Moheb Ali, and added that the Commissioners' reason for imposing a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on Kate was, to say the least, `frivolous'.

Car in 602 cartons!

ANOTHER case from Mumbai is about Rajesh Gade who bought a Mitsubishi Pajero through Vinay Saraf, a broker. One K. C. Mathew had imported the car about a decade ago. In 1996, the department officials seized the car, pointing out that car was presumably a 1995 model, imported into Dubai in 1995 (vide Bill No 2075117), and so could not have been under Mathew's use since 1994 nor could he have purchased it in April 1994 in Dubai, as he had claimed.

"Nobody could have driven that car in 1994 in Dubai let alone the slippery Mathew," is how the Commissioner recorded his observations, while approving the revised value of Rs 11,41,520 as against Rs 6,58,703 taken for assessment earlier.

A paragraph in the order of tribunal member P.S. Sekhon reads: "The department proposed penalties on all and sundry. In fact the only persons on whom penalties are not proposed are the traffic constables who may have watched the car plying on the road and Mrs Nargiz Nadir Ali who complained that her husband was doing nothing."

The tribunal did not find any evidence that the car was a 1995 model. "Even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the said car was imported into Dubai in the year 1995, it cannot be concluded that the car is of 1995 Model," reasoned Sekhon. He added that Bill 2075117 spoke of `602 cartons used Auto Parts and Tyres', with no relevance to the case on hand, and therefore discarded the evidence straightaway.

A case of car in cartons?

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

D. Murali

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page