9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalties imposed on the applicants for fraudulent activities under DEPB scheme. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with stay applications against penalties imposed on the applicants for fraudulent activities related to the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme. The penalties were based on an adjudication order by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi. The case involved exports of CD ROMs in 1998 to entities in UAE and Hong Kong at highly overvalued prices to benefit from the DEPB scheme. Investigations revealed that the export prices were inflated, and the buyers abroad were connected parties remitting amounts to India to exploit the scheme. It was also discovered that the exported goods were re-imported under different names, indicating a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the applicants. The applicants contested the penalties, with one denying involvement and claiming duress during investigation, while others asserted they were mere employees with no knowledge of the fraud. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, found clear evidence of money laundering and racketeering in DEPB scrip. The overvaluation of exported goods and circulation of the same goods in different transactions highlighted the fraudulent nature of the scheme. The judgment emphasized the applicants' exploitation of the arbitrage between hawala remittance and DEPB scrip through false export realizations. Specifically, the roles of the main parties in the fraud, such as Bimal Kumar Jain and Deep Swarup Aggarwal, were well-established in creating bogus entities and benefiting monetarily. While Jain's firm had already deposited a significant portion of the penalty, Aggarwal was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs due to his substantial involvement in the fraudulent activities. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for Jain but not for Aggarwal, highlighting the varying degrees of culpability among the applicants. In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered Aggarwal to make the specified deposit and report compliance by a set date, while waiving the pre-deposit requirement for other applicants. The judgment underscored the seriousness of the fraudulent activities and the individual responsibilities of the involved parties, resulting in differentiated decisions regarding penalty deposits.
|
