9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs Department to deny DEPB credit. 2. Demand of duty from exporters under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 3. Compliance with Notification 45/2002-Cus dated 22-04-2002. 4. Allegation of overvaluation of export goods. 5. Liability of goods for confiscation post-export. 6. Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 7. Penalty imposition when no duty is payable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Customs Department to Deny DEPB Credit: The appellants argued that the Customs Department lacks jurisdiction to deny DEPB credit, asserting that this authority lies with the Licensing Authority (DGFT). They cited several decisions to support this claim. However, the judgment clarified that Customs Authorities assess the value of export goods, which forms the basis for DGFT to allow DEPB credit. The Customs Authorities have the jurisdiction to investigate overvaluation, and based on such investigations, DGFT can take further action. In this case, DGFT had already canceled the DEPB credit based on the Customs' investigation. 2. Demand of Duty from Exporters Under Section 28 of the Customs Act: The appellants contended that duty can only be demanded from importers, not exporters. The judgment examined Section 28 of the Customs Act, which allows duty to be demanded from the "person chargeable with the duty," not specifically the importer. The court noted that exporters who fraudulently obtained DEPB licenses and sold them, resulting in duty evasion, could be held liable. The Gujarat High Court's decision in Suresh Dhansiram Agarwal vs. UOI supported this interpretation, allowing recovery of revenue lost due to fraudulent DEPB licenses from exporters. 3. Compliance with Notification 45/2002-Cus dated 22-04-2002: The appellants argued that they had fulfilled all requirements of Notification 45/2002-Cus. However, the judgment noted that the DGFT had canceled the licenses, indicating non-compliance. The requirement that licenses be obtained by proper means is an implied condition, and the cancellation by DGFT invalidated the appellants' claim of compliance. 4. Allegation of Overvaluation of Export Goods: The judgment found substantial evidence of overvaluation, including the appellants' admission of overvaluation by 10-15%, the use of bogus bank accounts, and transactions with hawala operators. However, the quantification of overvaluation and the basis for denying DEPB credit were found to be inconsistent and unclear. The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the findings and directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine and clearly quantify the extent of overvaluation. 5. Liability of Goods for Confiscation Post-Export: The judgment clarified that goods can be held liable to confiscation even after actual export if they do not correspond to the information furnished at the time of export, as per Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. The court noted that while goods need to be available for physical confiscation, the liability for confiscation can still be determined post-export. 6. Imposition of Penalty Under Section 114A of the Customs Act: The judgment upheld the imposition of penalties under Section 114A, stating that when goods are liable to confiscation, penalties can be imposed on the persons responsible for the fraudulent actions leading to such liability. 7. Penalty Imposition When No Duty is Payable: The appellants argued that no penalty can be imposed if no duty is payable. The judgment rejected this argument, stating that penalties can be imposed for fraudulent actions even if the duty itself is not directly payable by the appellants. Conclusion: The judgment set aside the consequences ordered against the appellants and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication. The adjudicating authority was directed to clearly identify shipping bills with non-realized export proceeds, quantify overvaluation reasonably, and ensure that only the ineligible credit utilized for customs duty payment is recovered. The judgment emphasized the need for a thorough and clear re-examination of the case.
|
