Rasheed Udhinoor Mattumel vs Commissioner of Customs

Antony Dominic, J.—The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to declare that the amendment carried out by respondent in bill of entry after clearing the goods from the custody of the petitioner is illegal. Petitioner also seeks an order for setting aside Ext.P11 and to direct respondents to issue bill of entry as per Ext.P9 reflecting the actual chassis number and make/model of the car as Toyota Land Cruiser of 2001 model having Chasis No. UZJ 100-0134325.

From the facts pleaded in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it would appear that M/s. Cargo Clear International, Customs House Agents, W/Island, Kochi filed bill of entry dated 17-12-2005 in the name of Petitioner for clearance of Toyota Land Cruiser car bearing Chassis No. UZJ 100-134325 declaring the year of manufacture as 2001. The car was examined by the officers of the customs department and the engine number was found to be 9098856 and the type was 2 UZ-FE. It is stated that the details of the vehicle available from the Import Manifest were forwarded to M/s. Toyota Kir-loskar Motors, Bangalore, the authorised representatives of M/s. Toyota Motors Corporation, Japan for ascertaining the year of manufacture and model of the vehicle. In response, by Ext. R1 (a) they informed the respondents that the vehicle with the chassis number noticed above was manufactured on 3-9-2001 having engine No. 9034591 and model UZJ 100 W-GN PZK. It was also informed by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors that the engine serial number and chassis number are recorded in each vehicle and that chassis number can easily be tampered whereas engine number tampering is impossible.

Subsequently details of engine number found on the engine was referred to M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors for ascertaining the details of the vehicle based on the engine number. It would appear that M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors forwarded the details of the vehicle to the manufacturer and that they were informed that the vehicle was actually Toyota Land Cruiser with chassis No. UZJ 100-014 5432 manufactured on 13-6-2003. From this information, it was realized that the actual chassis number was tampered and manipulated and wrong number and year of manufacture was declared by the importer, the petitioner herein to make it appear that the vehicle is older than it actually was. It was also found that the documents submitted for clearance of the vehicle were not genuine.

In view of the above the car was ordered to be seized on 24-2-2006. Thereafter, summons was issued to the Petitioner. He was heard and finally, the vehicle was assessed as 2003 model for value of Rs. 14,22,545/-. It was ordered to be confiscated but however, the importer was allowed to redeem the car on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,25,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,15,000/-. This order is Ext. P6. Although the petitioner submits that, against Ext. P6 order an appeal has been filed, nothing is disclosed in the writ petition as to whether the appeal was allowed or not. If that be so, the conclusion in Ext. P6 order about the wrong declaration made by the petitioner of the chassis number and the year of manufacture has become final. It is on the basis of this finding, subsequently the Customs Department, by Ext. P11 order, made amendments in the bill of entry incorporating the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 2003. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

As already seen, amendment to the bill of entry made by Ext. P11, in relation to the year of manufacture of vehicle, was carried on based on the conclusion in Ext. P6 order of adjudication issued by the Customs Department. The findings in Ext. P6 are based on the information''s furnished by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore as per Exts. R1(a) and R1(b), which were gathered by them by obtaining details from M/s. Toyota Motors Corporation, Japan. Since Ext. P6 order has become final, the amendment made based on Ext. P6 cannot be faulted. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that amendment to the bill of entry was made without any material and that too without conducting any enquiry is only to be rejected. If so, no case has been made out for interference.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.