2008 (5) TMI 590 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Stay of realization of demand during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Legitimacy of duty drawback claims.
4. Penalties imposed on the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The first appellant filed an appeal with a delay of nearly 31 days due to his counsel's difficulties and his own health problems. He supported his claim with affidavits and argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond his control. The revenue had no objection to the condonation. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for disposal.

2. Stay of Realization of Demand During Pendency of the Appeal:

All four appellants sought a stay on the realization of the demand made against them by a common order dated 30-3-07. The Tribunal heard the stay applications together and disposed of them by a common order. The first appellant was directed to repay a drawback amount of Rs. 24,39,500/- with interest and faced a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second, third, and fourth appellants each faced a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under the same section.

3. Legitimacy of Duty Drawback Claims:

The adjudicating authority found that the first appellant claimed a duty drawback of Rs. 24,39,500/- without actually exporting imitation jewelry, defrauding the revenue with the help of the other appellants. The first appellant was deemed the main offender, while the others were considered abettors. The appellants argued that they were falsely implicated and that the export was genuine, as per customs records. However, the revenue's investigation revealed that the export documents were fabricated, and the actual export did not occur. The Tribunal found that the evidence gathered by the revenue remained uncontroverted, and the appellants failed to prove their innocence or the genuineness of the export.

4. Penalties Imposed on the Appellants:

The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the first appellant masterminded the fraudulent claim with the support of the other appellants. The second and fourth appellants, being customs officers, were found guilty as abettors. The third appellant, the legal heir of his deceased father, claimed to be falsely implicated and had no interest in the offense. The Tribunal decided that the veracity of the third appellant's claim would be subject to further evidence and verification during the regular hearing.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the first appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount of the drawback and penalty within four weeks. The second and fourth appellants were also required to pre-deposit the penalty amounts within the same period. The third appellant was not required to make any pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance was required by 10-7-2008. The operative part of the order and reasons for the decision were pronounced in open court on 29-5-2008.