Page 230 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

140 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

ted that the enquiries made by the Department from M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Mo-
tors, Bangalore, it was found that the year of manufacture is 2003 and not 1998
and the chassis was tampered for misdeclaring the year of manufacture. He fur-
ther submitted that once the department found the tampering with the Chassis
number, thereafter the Department rejected the invoice value and reassessed the
value of used car at Rs. 14,87,102/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Eighty Seven Thou-
sand One Hundred and Two Only) (based on list price for 2003) by Joint Com-
missioner, Customs and accordingly the vehicle was confiscated under Sections
111(d) and 111(m) and ordered for provisional release on payment of redemption
fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Ru-
pees Two Lakh Only) under Section 112(a). He further submitted that the obser-
vation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is a serious doubt regarding the
tampering of the chassis number is not based on any evidence but only on the
basis of assumptions. He further submitted that it is a clear case of tampering of
chassis number of imported second hand car Toyota Land Cruiser by the import-
er as proved by the information furnished by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors,
Bangalore who are the unit of Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan which is the
manufacturer of the said vehicle. The information obtained from M/s. Toyota
which is reputed global leader in the manufacture of car cannot be brushed
aside. He further submitted that tampering is done to make less payment of du-
ty. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the
evidence furnished by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore on the ground
that they are the interested party since they are importer of similar vehicles in
India and import of second hand cars of the same company at cheaper price can
adversely affect the import of new cars. He further submitted that the Commis-
sioner (Appeals) has relied upon the certificate issued by Dubai Police which is a
sovereign body whereas the information given by the Toyota Kirloskar Motors,
Bangalore has not been given any credence.
4. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent defend-
ed the impugned order and submitted that in the first round of litigation, the
CESTAT remanded the matter to the Original Authority and directed the Origi-
nal Authority to decide the matter after affording an opportunity to the importer
to cross-examine the signatory to the documents relied upon by the adjudicating
authority. He further submitted that in reply to the show cause notice, the re-
spondent specifically alleged that M/s. Navnit Motors is the party adversely af-
fected by the import of car into India and allegation of mis-declaration and even
the Customs duty evasion cannot be admitted solely based on the evidence ad-
duced by such agencies. He further submitted that instead of allowing cross-
examination of signatory of the letter, another person who was not familiar with
the matter was summoned to appear for cross-examination. During cross-
examination, the said representative failed to give any evidence regarding the
discussion carried out between C.N. Hebbar, the signatory of letter issued by
M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors and the Investigating Officer of Cochin Customs
as mentioned in the said letter. He further submitted that the representative of
M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors refused to give answer to the questions which
were very crucial to substantiate the allegation that they were the interested par-
ty and have no authority to represent the original manufacturers, M/s. Toyota
Corporation, Japan. The person claiming to be one of the senior most officer of
M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors have failed to give even basic information wheth-
er engine of the car can be interchanged by another engine and gave the negative

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  230