2017 (4) TMI 732 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - Valuation - DEPB Credit - The Department alleges that the exports were overvalued with a view to obtain DEPB credit fraudulently, there were no importers for the goods exported, the value of the goods was outsourced into the firm s bank accounts through one KRK International and some other sources - Held that - it was incumbent for the adjudicating authority to have dealt with each and every contention of the appellants and indicate his findings thereon. This has not been done - adjudicating authority has ignored the request of the appellants for examination of certain persons He has not even discussed the said request in the impugned order. The impugned order has not gone into all aspects of the dispute concerned and also suffers from denial of natural justice to the appellant herein. In the event, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
Alleged overvaluation of exports, recovery of DEPB credit, confiscation of goods, penalties imposed, denial of natural justice, violation of principles of natural justice, examination of concerned persons, imposition of penalties on partners, confiscation of foreign currency, role of individual in alleged transactions.

Analysis:

1. Alleged Overvaluation of Exports and Recovery of DEPB Credit:
The case involves M/s. Helpline, a partnership firm, accused of overvaluing exports to fraudulently obtain DEPB credit. The Department alleged that the exports were overvalued, leading to the recovery of DEPB credit amounting to ?75,97,317. The firm exported seven consignments of drugs valued at ?4.26 crores to Myanmar & Cambodia. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared export value and ordered the recovery of DEPB credit. The appellants contested the valuation based on confessional statements and argued that DEPB credit recovery under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act is not applicable.

2. Confiscation of Goods and Penalties Imposed:
The goods exported were confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, and penalties were imposed on M/s. Helpline and the individual partners under various sections. The penalties included ?4 crores on the firm and ?40 lakhs on the individual appellant. The appellants challenged the confiscation and penalties citing legal precedents and procedural violations, including denial of natural justice and lack of detailed reasoning in the impugned order.

3. Denial of Natural Justice and Examination of Concerned Persons:
The appellants raised concerns regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of cross-examination of implicated persons and reliance on non-voluntary statements. The adjudicating authority failed to address these contentions and did not provide a detailed analysis or reasoning for the penalties imposed. The appellants' requests for examination of certain persons were ignored, indicating a denial of natural justice.

4. Confiscation of Foreign Currency and Role of Individual in Transactions:
The confiscation of foreign currency equivalent to ?4.25 crores withdrawn from the account of M/s. Helpline was disputed, arguing that the amount did not constitute goods imported within Indian customs waters. The individual appellant, who joined the firm later, claimed no involvement in the alleged illegal exports, emphasizing a lack of evidence supporting his participation in the conspiracy.

5. Remand for De Novo Adjudication:
The Appellate Tribunal found deficiencies in the impugned order, including the failure to address all aspects of the dispute and provide a reasoned analysis. In light of the denial of natural justice and procedural irregularities, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The authority was instructed to allow the appellants to present their case, submit additional evidence, and cross-examine implicated persons, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the grievances raised.

← Previous Next →