9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 420 - AT - CustomsFraudulent claim of higher DEPB benefit - appellant exported the India made Romano and Sitax brand wrist watch whose price is domestic market ranged from Rs. 80 to Rs. 120 per piece to Dubai at highly inflated price of US 8.5 per piece FOB and thereafter re-imported the same watches at price of US 0.95 to 1.05 per piece and re-exported the same again at the inflated price of US 8.50 per piece - goods rightly confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 Redemption fine - goods held to be liable for confiscation in paras 116(ii) (iii) & (iv) of the impugned order are neither available for confiscation nor the same had been released provisionally against bond. Therefore no redemption fine could be imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act confiscation upheld of the goods in para 116(i) of the impugned order and also uphold the penalty imposed in paras 116(v) 116(vii) of the impugned order on M/s. S.S. Watch and penalty imposed in para 116(ix) of the impugned order on Shri Girvar Singh redemption fine imposed on M/s. S.S. Watch in paras 116(ii) (iii) & (iv) of the impugned order set aside penalty under Section 112 set aside imposed on Shri Sunil Bansal in paras 116(v) & 116(vii) of the impugned order appeals stand disposed off as above.
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of wrist watches and imposition of redemption fine. 2. Allegations of fraudulent DEPB claims through export-import cycles. 3. Imposition of penalties on various parties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act. 4. Validity of redemption fines on goods not available for confiscation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Wrist Watches and Imposition of Redemption Fine: The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, confiscated wrist watches imported by M/s. S.S. Watch Industries under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine. The judgment upheld the confiscation of wrist watches imported at Delhi and Mumbai, as these were found to be Indian-made "Romano" and "Sitax" brand watches, previously exported by M/s. S.S. Watch, M/s. Rama Watch, or M/s. Hanu Exports, and re-imported at a lower declared value. 2. Allegations of Fraudulent DEPB Claims Through Export-Import Cycles: The Tribunal found that M/s. S.S. Watch, M/s. Rama Watch, and M/s. Hanu Exports exported wrist watches at an inflated price of US $8.5 per piece to Dubai and re-imported them at a declared price of US $0.95 to 1.05 per piece. This cycle was repeated to fraudulently claim higher DEPB benefits. The Tribunal noted that the same watches were exported and re-imported multiple times without any processing, such as gold plating, as claimed by the appellants. The evidence included blank invoices and letters indicating the orchestration of these transactions. 3. Imposition of Penalties on Various Parties Under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act: Penalties were imposed on M/s. S.S. Watch, its partner Shri Sunil Bansal, M/s. Rama Watch, and Shri Girvar Singh of M/s. G.S. Enterprises under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalties on M/s. S.S. Watch and Shri Girvar Singh but set aside the penalties on Shri Sunil Bansal, as separate penalties on both the firm and its partner were deemed unnecessary. 4. Validity of Redemption Fines on Goods Not Available for Confiscation: The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. M/s. Raja Impex (P) Ltd., which held that redemption fines under Section 125 could not be imposed on goods not available for confiscation unless they were released provisionally against a bond. The Tribunal set aside the redemption fines imposed on goods that were not available for confiscation and were not released provisionally against a bond. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of wrist watches and penalties on M/s. S.S. Watch and Shri Girvar Singh but set aside the redemption fines on unavailable goods and penalties on Shri Sunil Bansal. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
