9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Demand for drawback recovery and denial of duty drawback. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. 3. Involvement and knowledge of the appellant in fraudulent activities related to export of goods. 4. Alleged procurement of exporting firm and involvement in overvaluing goods for export. Analysis: 1. The appellant was issued a show cause notice regarding the demand for drawback recovery and denial of duty drawback for goods exported. The appellant, along with others, was involved in exporting garments to a company in UAE, overvaluing the goods and claiming a drawback. The appellant's involvement in these activities was questioned, leading to the issuance of the show cause notice. The adjudicator ordered the recovery of drawback, denial of pending drawback, and confiscation of goods, along with imposing a penalty on the appellant. The appellant appealed against this order, contesting the allegations made. 2. The appellate tribunal considered the issues raised by both sides. It was noted that there was no concrete evidence to prove the appellant's direct involvement in the fraudulent activities related to the export of goods. The statements recorded were contradictory, and the evidence provided was deemed insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The tribunal found discrepancies in the statements of the individuals involved, indicating a lack of clear evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent activities. As a result, the tribunal concluded that there was no substantial material to attribute any pre-concert or post-concert of the appellant in the said activities. 3. Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted that there was no substantial evidence to prove the appellant's involvement in the overvaluation of goods or the procurement of the exporting firm. The alleged acts of the appellant were not corroborated, and the evidence presented did not establish the appellant's knowledge or participation in the fraudulent activities. The tribunal emphasized that the actions attributed to the appellant did not fall under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding attempts or successful exports. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed unjustified and was set aside. 4. The appellant did not contest the liability for drawback recovery, and the tribunal did not make any findings on that aspect. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's direct involvement in the fraudulent activities related to the export of goods. The order of the Commissioner was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
