2016 (11) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties - whether the appellants are involved in aiding and abetting fraudulent claim of drawback? - Held that - As regard the repeated request of the appellant for cross examination of various persons, I find that Adjudicating authority has called witnesses for cross examination but they were not available therefore case was denovo adjudicated on the basis of available evidences. I do not find anything wrong in deciding the case on the basis of evidences or whatsoever documents available with the Adjudicating authority. Apart from the statement there are ample documentary evidences which clearly establish that appellants were involved in aiding and abetting fraudulent availement of drawback. Therefore even if cross examination of the witnesses could not be conducted the same will not vitiate the proceedings carried out by the Adjudicating authority. As per facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences relied upon by the Adjudicating authority, I do not find any infirmity in the order. The impugned order is upheld and appeals are dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Fraudulent claim of drawback in exports; Involvement of appellants in aiding and abetting fraudulent claim of drawback; Violation of principle of natural justice in the adjudication process; Disproportionate penalties imposed on the appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals arising from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Order-in-Original. The penalties were imposed on the appellants for their involvement in fraudulent exports and claiming fraudulent drawbacks. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the declared value of exported garments, leading to the fraudulent claim of drawback. The central issue was whether the appellants were actively involved in this fraudulent activity. Statements of various individuals implicated the appellants in aiding and abetting the fraudulent claim of drawback. Despite challenges regarding the cross-examination of witnesses, the Adjudicating authority relied on available evidence to confirm the penalties imposed on the appellants.

The appellant argued a violation of the principle of natural justice, emphasizing the lack of cross-examination of key witnesses. However, the Adjudicating authority proceeded with the case based on available evidence and documents. The appellant also contended that the penalties were excessive and disproportionate, as they did not directly benefit from the fraudulent claims. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the appellants played an active role in the fraudulent scheme, justifying the penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal carefully evaluated the submissions and evidence presented. It established that the appellants, along with their company, orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently claim drawbacks on low-valued exports. Detailed analysis revealed the active involvement of the appellants in planning and executing the fraudulent exports through a network of entities. Despite challenges to witness cross-examination, the Tribunal found sufficient corroborative evidence to support the penalties imposed. The judgment upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals and affirming the penalties on the appellants for aiding and abetting the fraudulent claim of drawback. The decision was based on the established facts and evidence, concluding that the appellants were actively involved in the fraudulent scheme.

Overall, the judgment addresses the complex issues of fraudulent exports, involvement in fraudulent claims of drawbacks, adherence to natural justice principles in adjudication, and the proportionality of penalties imposed in such cases. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of thorough investigation, evidence evaluation, and legal principles in determining liabilities in customs-related offenses.