K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-original bearing No. S/43-UB-117/88-89 P dated 27-7-1988 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (General).

2. The undisputed facts are:-

The appellant Shri Murphy William, holder of Passport No. R 143191 is a British National. He presented an application for import of 2 vehicles through the Port of Bombay under Triptyque system. He was in possession of 2 Carnet-de-Passages issued by the Carnet issuing authority of Holland (Netherlands).

3. The cars which were 2 stations wagons 10 seaters each were shipped from Dubai and since the name of the customer was mentioned as M/s. William Murphy India in the invoice and C/o. Airfreight Pvt. Ltd. Sahar, Cargo Complex and since the appellant happens to be a tourist having his base at U.K. and carnets were obtained at Netherlands and since 2 vehicles were imported by 2 carnets, some doubt was felt by the Customs regarding the bonafide of the importation and particularly when the appellant was not representing or leading any group of tourists. The appellant was asked to produce the registration book for the vehicles. It appears by his letter dated 12-7-1988 addressed to the Collector the Appellant stated :

"I have obtained a translation of the Dubai Traffic Police document and enclosed a copy for you. As you will see, some-how, the vehicle left Dubai unregistered. In the circumstances, I owe you an unreserved apology as it is now obvious that you were completely right and only doing your job properly."

On further enquiry, by the Customs, it transpired that the appellant's wife had brought three vehicles for tourism purposes in May, 1986 all of which were Toyota Land Cruiser 10 seaters. These vehicles were imported on 14-5-1986 and were reported to have been exported on 18-5-1986. It further appears that the appellant himself had imported a vehicle under carnet system on 16-7-1986 and the same was exported to Nepal on 20-7-1986. The appellant appears to have been questioned as to what became of those vehicles and he seems to have answered that he was no more the owner of the said vehicles.

4. Since the vehicles imported did not bear any registration number the carnets produced were not treated as valid to cover the importation of the vehicles in question. Therefore, the violation of Imports & Exports (Control) Order was explained to the appellant since he waived written show cause notice. He was called upon to show cause as to why the vehicles should not be confiscated an why penalty should not be imposed on him. A personal hearing was also given to the appellant. The appellant was told that there was mis-declaration regarding the registration of the vehicle and he was further told that he had brought 2 vehicles both registered in his name. The appellant according to the Addl. Collector's order admitted that there had been a mis-declaration. But then he contended that he had 2 carnets and as such there was no violation of the law. He also requested to allow the vehicles to reship to Dubai.

5. The Addl. Collector, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered confiscation of both the vehicles but allowed re-export to U.K. on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant and hence this appeal.

6. During the hearing of this appeal initially Shri S.U. Balani contended that since the appellant produced 2 carnets there was no reasonable cause for the department to entertain any suspicion as to the import of the vehicles. He further contended that there was no restriction as to the number of vehicles that could be imported under the carnet system. All that was required was for the production of carnet and the same had been produced.

7. Continuing the arguments Shri Patel submitted that the Addl. Collector had given the following reasons for ordering confiscation and imposing penalty.

Firstly, that the appellant initially took a stand that