2001 (1) TMI 548 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to investigate DEEC imports.
2. Validity of findings based on inculpatory statements.
3. Imposition and quantum of penalties.
4. Demand for interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to Investigate DEEC Imports:

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of Customs Authorities, arguing that DEEC Scheme violations should be addressed by the Commerce Ministry and the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). They cited the Madras High Court judgment in Union of India v. Oceanic Corporation. However, the Tribunal rejected this challenge, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which affirmed that Customs Authorities have jurisdiction over violations of the DEEC Scheme under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Customs Authorities are competent to investigate and adjudicate such violations.

2. Validity of Findings Based on Inculpatory Statements:

The appellants argued that the findings were based solely on the inculpatory statements of Shri Maninder Singh without corroboration. However, the Tribunal found substantial evidence of forgery in the export documents. The discrepancies between the triplicate copies of shipping bills and the original documents were significant, indicating manipulation of quantities and values. The Tribunal noted that the appellants admitted to the wrongdoing and had deposited the evaded duty amounts. The Tribunal held that the evidence and admissions established the evasion of customs duty through fraudulent practices.

3. Imposition and Quantum of Penalties:

The appellants contended that the penalties imposed were excessive and that separate penalties on firms and partners were unjustified. The Tribunal agreed to set aside the penalties on the partners but upheld the penalties on the firms and Shri Maninder Singh. Considering the duty amounts involved, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1 crore on M/s. Tara Singh & Sons and reduced the penalty on M/s. Business International to Rs. 1.5 crore. The penalty on Shri Maninder Singh was reduced to Rs. 1 crore, acknowledging his principal responsibility in managing the firms' operations and orchestrating the fraud.

4. Demand for Interest:

The appellants argued that the demand for interest was not tenable as the provision for interest under Section 28 of the Customs Act was incorporated through the Finance Act of 1996, after the evasion had occurred and the duty had been deposited. The Tribunal accepted this argument and set aside the demand for interest, as the duty evasion and payment occurred before the interest provision came into effect.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal provided partial relief to the appellants by setting aside the penalties on the partners and reducing the penalties on the firms and Shri Maninder Singh. The demand for interest was also set aside. However, the Tribunal confirmed the findings of duty evasion and upheld the penalties on the firms and Shri Maninder Singh, emphasizing the fraudulent nature of the actions and the substantial evidence supporting the adjudication.