2005 (7) TMI 432 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Duty confirmation against M/s. Harikishan Overseas
- Validity of penalties imposed under Sections 114 and 112
- Transfer of licenses and duty liability
- Cancellation of DEPB Licenses and retrospective effect

Duty confirmation against M/s. Harikishan Overseas:
The case involved the export of CD ROMs under DEPB License, with subsequent transfer of licenses to other companies for importing different items. The duty demand was confirmed on M/s. Harikishan Overseas, but the Tribunal held that duty could be confirmed against the importers, M/s. Volvo India (P) Ltd. and G.G. Photo Ltd., based on legal precedents. The Tribunal referenced previous cases to support the decision that duty can be claimed from the importer, not the exporter who initially obtained the license.

Validity of penalties imposed under Sections 114 and 112:
Penalties under Sections 114 and 112 of the Act were imposed on Pankaj Soni and Ratinder Pal Singh. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, citing the cancellation of DEPB Licenses due to over-invoicing of exported goods as valid grounds. Despite the appellants' arguments based on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal found no reason to disagree with the adjudicating authority's findings. The penalties were reduced to rupees 1.5 lakh for Pankaj Soni and rupees 3 lakhs for Ratinder Pal Singh, with adjustments made for amounts already deposited.

Transfer of licenses and duty liability:
The Tribunal considered the transfer of licenses and the duty liability in such cases. It emphasized that duty could be claimed from the importers, not the exporters who transferred the licenses. The legal position on duty liability in cases of license transfer was clarified based on precedents and established principles.

Cancellation of DEPB Licenses and retrospective effect:
Regarding the cancellation of DEPB Licenses and its retrospective effect, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that penalties could not be imposed due to the licenses being valid at the time of export and import. The Tribunal supported the cancellation based on over-invoicing findings and imposed penalties accordingly. The judgment modified the impugned order, reducing the penalties for the appellants based on the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the duty liability, upheld penalties for violations, and addressed the cancellation of licenses with a retrospective effect, providing detailed reasoning and legal references for each issue considered.