2017 (9) TMI 758 - AT - Customs

Import of wire less transmitting/receiving apparatus, satellite communication equipment etc against forged import licenses - confiscation - penalty - Held that - The goods imported by the appellants require an import licence from WPC Cell of DoT. The licence produced by them and on whose basis the goods were cleared, have been found to be forged and fraudulent. Even though M/s Aricent & M/s Hughes have no role to play in forging of the WPC licences, the fact remains that goods were imported without proper import licence which becomes a contravention of Section 111 - It stands established as per the investigation carried-out by DRI that WPC import licences required for import of certain telecom equipments were fabricated and forged by ASL in their offices. It is seen that S/Sh. Ashok Gupta, Jarnail Singh Chaudhary, Sanjay Sachdeva and Ms Anuradha Diwan have played their part in fabricating WPC licences which were handed-over and used for import of equipments. The various individuals have also admitted their role in the fraud in their respective statements. The penalty imposed on (1) M/s Aricent Holdings Ltd (2) M/s Hughes Communication India Ltd and (3) M/s Hughes Network Systems India Ltd upheld - The penalties imposed on various functionaries of ASL are fully justified and are upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of import licenses for wireless transmitting/receiving apparatus.
2. Penalties imposed on importers for using forged import licenses.
3. Penalties imposed on M/s Alliance Strategies Ltd (ASL) and its employees for fabricating import licenses.
4. Appeals against the penalties and confiscation orders.

Detailed Analysis:

Legitimacy of Import Licenses for Wireless Transmitting/Receiving Apparatus:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated the importation of wireless transmitting/receiving apparatus and satellite communication equipment using forged import licenses purportedly issued by the Wireless Planning and Coordinating Wing (WPC) of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India. The investigation revealed that M/s Alliance Strategies Ltd (ASL) fabricated these forged licenses. The WPC confirmed that the import licenses found in ASL's files were not issued by them. Consequently, the goods imported using these forged licenses were seized and subsequently provisionally released.

Penalties Imposed on Importers for Using Forged Import Licenses:
The importers, including M/s Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd and M/s Hughes Communication India Ltd, argued that they were under the bona fide belief that the licenses were genuine and thus should not be penalized under Section 112(a). However, the tribunal upheld the penalties, emphasizing the principle of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware). The tribunal referenced the Hon’ble Apex Court’s ruling in Affloat Textiles (I) P Ltd, which held that buyers must ensure the genuineness of the licenses and take requisite precautions. The tribunal concluded that despite the importers not being involved in the forgery, the importation of goods without proper licenses constituted a contravention of Section 111.

Penalties Imposed on M/s Alliance Strategies Ltd (ASL) and Its Employees for Fabricating Import Licenses:
The investigation established that ASL, through its employees, fabricated WPC import licenses. Statements from ASL employees, including Sh. Jaspal Singh Chaudhary, Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva, and others, confirmed their involvement in preparing forged licenses. The tribunal noted that the forgery was carried out under the directions of ASL's senior officials, including the Chairman and CEO. The adjudicating authority detailed the roles of various ASL employees in the conspiracy to forge import licenses, which led to the importation of restricted telecom equipment.

Appeals Against the Penalties and Confiscation Orders:
The appeals filed by ASL employees argued that they were merely following orders and were not the primary beneficiaries of the fraud. However, the tribunal found that the penalties imposed were justified based on the evidence and admissions of involvement in the forgery. The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on ASL and its employees, concluding that they had committed offenses by forging WPC import licenses, rendering the imported goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and penal action under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed all appeals and upheld the Orders-in-Original, confirming the penalties imposed on the importers and ASL employees for using and fabricating forged import licenses. The judgment emphasized the responsibility of importers to verify the authenticity of import licenses and the legal consequences of failing to do so. The tribunal's decision reinforced the principle of caveat emptor and highlighted the serious legal implications of forgery and fraud in import transactions.