2002 (10) TMI 645 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Advance Licence and ante-dating of documents.
2. Duty liability of Rs. 27,84,814/-.
3. Adjustment of duty liability from the deposit made by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd.
4. Role and liability of the applicant in the evasion of Customs duty.
5. Grant of immunity from fine, penalty, interest, and prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Advance Licence and Ante-dating of Documents:
The applicant purchased 10,000 MT of imported 'Steam Coal' from M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. and filed two Bills of Entry for clearance under the DEEC Scheme using a transferable Advance Licence that had expired on 30-4-1998. The documents were manipulated to show the Bill of Lading as ante-dated to benefit from the expired Advance Licence. The Commission noted that the applicant had manipulated documents to show that the consignments were cleared against live Advance Licences, though the dates of such Advance Licences had expired.

2. Duty Liability of Rs. 27,84,814/-:
A Show Cause Notice dated 15-1-2001 was issued by DRI demanding duty of Rs. 27,84,814/-. The applicant admitted the duty liability of Rs. 27,84,814/- and sought to adjust this amount from a deposit of Rs. 1,32,16,613/- made by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. The Commission directed the applicant to pay the admitted duty liability within 30 days.

3. Adjustment of Duty Liability from the Deposit Made by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd.:
The applicant's request to adjust the duty liability from the deposit made by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. was initially denied by the Commission. The applicant filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court, which ordered the adjustment of the admitted liability from the deposit. The Commission was directed to dispose of the application expeditiously in accordance with the law.

4. Role and Liability of the Applicant in the Evasion of Customs Duty:
The applicant argued that they had no role in the evasion of Customs duty and that all customs clearance work was undertaken by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. However, the Commission found contradictions in the applicant's statements. The Commission noted that the applicant was fully aware of the duty being evaded and had sought to clear consignments against an expired Advance Licence.

5. Grant of Immunity from Fine, Penalty, Interest, and Prosecution:
The Commission settled the case for an amount of Rs. 27,84,814/-, which was adjusted from the duty paid by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. The Commission granted immunity from the levy of interest under Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. However, a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed on the applicant, considering their awareness of the transaction and involvement in clearing consignments against an expired Advance Licence. The Commission granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Conclusion:
The Commission concluded that the applicant was aware of the duty evasion and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Immunity from interest and prosecution was granted, but the order of settlement would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

← Previous Next →