2001 (11) TMI 153 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of duty from M/s. Jupiter Exports.
2. Refund of appropriate amount to the appellants.
3. Stay on directions of the Tribunal pending application in the High Court.
4. Mistakes in the Commissioner's order and presentation of facts before the Tribunal.
5. Errors in the Tribunal's order and filing of rectification application by the Revenue.
6. Ministry of Law's advice and remarks on the Tribunal's order.
7. Detection of fraud by Customs authorities and delay in taking action.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal examined the misdeeds of M/s. Jupiter Exports, who fraudulently obtained advance licenses and falsified export documents to inflate export values. The Commissioner held them as "deemed importers" and imposed penalties. However, the Tribunal held that duty could not be recovered from M/s. Jupiter Exports except for one direct import, reducing the penalties imposed proportionately.

2. Following the Tribunal's decision, the appellants sought a refund from Customs. The Tribunal directed the Departmental Representative to provide a report on the action taken. The Commissioner submitted that an application was filed in the High Court under Section 130(A) of the Customs Act, seeking a stay on the Tribunal's directions.

3. The Tribunal cited previous judgments, including Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., supporting the position that duty could only be demanded from the actual importers, not the license holders. Additionally, the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Sancheti Food Products Ltd. clarified that a reference application did not stay the Tribunal's order.

4. The Revenue acknowledged errors in the Commissioner's order and the presentation of facts before the Tribunal. Despite gross errors, the Revenue did not appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could have filed for rectification of mistakes but had not done so.

5. The Ministry of Law's advice criticized the Tribunal's order as "absurd," prompting the Tribunal's disapproval of such remarks. The Ministry's advice highlighted the delay in taking action against detected fraud since 1995, leading to the Revenue's application for not returning unlawfully collected money.

6. Expressing dissatisfaction with the Commissioner's actions, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to refund the amounts due to the appellants under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, highlighting the need for timely and appropriate actions in such cases.