2010 (4) TMI 781 - HC - Customs

DEPB licences - Penalty - non-transferable advance license - Notification No. 34/97 dated 7-4-1997 - Forgery of DEPB licence may entail prosecution under the ordinary criminal law or under any other provision of the EXIM Policy under which the DEPB licences are issued - it is apparent that the same provides for penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Thus any person who acts or omits to do any act in relation to goods so as to render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or acquires possession of or deals with goods in the manner provided under clause (b) of Section 112 would be liable to penalty as laid down thereunder - there is no evidence of any direct involvement of the respondent as regards forgery of the licences, even otherwise the provisions of Section 111 and 112 of the Act would not be attracted so as to vest the Customs Authorities with the power to take action against the present respondent in connection with his alleged involvement in the purchase of the DEPB licences - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to common order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Justification of rejecting appeal on trading in forged license
- Reliance on non-final decision in Tribunal's order
- Discussion on penalty imposition and role attribution
- Role of respondent as a broker in forged license transaction
- Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in forgery cases
- Interpretation of Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act

Analysis:
The appellant-revenue challenged a common order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising substantial questions of law. The case involved the trading of forged DEPB licenses by M/s. Abhiman Export, leading to clearance of goods by M/s. Rajshanti Metals Ltd. based on these licenses. The respondent, acting as a broker, was penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of clear findings against the respondent's role in the transaction.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on a non-final decision and not considering the respondent's involvement as a broker in trading forged licenses. The Tribunal's order highlighted the lack of discussion on the respondent's role in imposing the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The Customs Authorities were deemed incompetent to take action in forgery cases, as the jurisdiction lies with the DGFT authorities. The involvement of the respondent as a broker in the license transaction did not constitute improper importation of goods under Sections 111 and 112 of the Act.

The judgment emphasized that the respondent's alleged involvement in the purchase of DEPB licenses did not amount to improper importation of goods under the Customs Act. As the Customs Authorities lacked jurisdiction in forgery cases, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating no legal infirmity for interference. With no substantial question of law raised, the appeals were ultimately dismissed.