2009 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

DEPB export fraud- claimed ineligible and excessive DEPB credits - M/s. G.R.M.L, the company did not have any plant and machinery in working condition. They have merely purchased the export-goods from Elin Electronics Ltd. through PESL but shown them as if manufactured by them by manipulating the raw material and production records. They have shown sale at highly inflated prices to the exporting firms to enable inflation of the export price with a view to claim excess DEPB benefits. For example, the goods invoiced by the actual manufacturer at Rs. 36.17 was shown to have been sold by PESL at Rs. 44.47 to M/s. G.R.M.L. who has shown sale at Rs. 430/- - Penalty imposed on company is valid but reduced from 10 lakhs to 5 lakhs - penalty individuals also upheld but reduced.

Summary

Issues:
Fraudulent exports under DEPB Scheme, Misdeclaration of FOB value, Ineligible DEPB credits claimed, Role of various parties in fraudulent exports, Imposition of penalties on individuals and companies involved.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the same order-in-original involving fraudulent exports under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. Investigations revealed that certain companies misdeclared the FOB value of exported goods to claim ineligible and excessive DEPB credits. The companies involved in the fraudulent exports were found to have purchased goods at nominal prices, inflated their value, and obtained inflated DEPB benefits. The key figure, Parasmal Rampuria, orchestrated the fraudulent operation in collusion with other parties. The Commissioner confirmed duty liabilities and imposed penalties on individuals and companies directly involved in the fraudulent exports.

The first appellant, Shri Naresh Jain, was a Director in one of the exporting companies controlled by Parasmal Rampuria. However, the show cause notice did not specify his role in the fraudulent exports. The Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on him due to lack of specific allegations against him.

The second appellant, M/s. G.R. Magnets Ltd., admitted to not having plant and machinery but was involved in inflating export prices to claim excess DEPB benefits. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs considering the circumstances.

The third appellant, Shri Rohitash Bhomia, closely collaborated with Parasmal Rampuria in various aspects of the fraudulent exports. Despite claiming ignorance about the imported goods, he was found to have knowledge and involvement in the activities. The penalty imposed on him was reduced from Rs. 22 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs based on the lack of evidence of receiving any consideration for his role.

The Tribunal concluded that all three appellants were closely involved in the fraudulent exports and upheld penalties accordingly. The judgment highlighted the organized nature of the fraud and the consequences of manipulated transfer of money. The penalties were reduced for two appellants based on specific circumstances and evidence presented during the proceedings.