2017 (5) TMI 861 - AT - Customs

Validity of DEPB licence - goods imported by the appellant under the cover of fake DEPB license No. 02602396 obtained fraudulently against forged documents - Demand of duty with interest - Penalty u/s 112 (a) of the CA, 1962 - extended period of limitation - Held that - the DEPB license was forged and fake. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail any benefit on the forged documents - The Tribunal in the case of Eastern Silk Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioiner of Customs (Airport) Kolkata 2015 (12) TMI 1299 - CESTAT KOLKATA , has held that A script obtained from the Licensing authority fraudulently cannot give licence to any transferee to avail any Customs duty exemption - In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority had given a finding that the appellant was not involved in the fraudulent activities. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. As per the above decision of the Tribunal, demand of duty alongwith interest is liable to be upheld - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of duty demand and interest on imported consignment under fake DEPB license
- Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Invocation of extended period of limitation
- Applicability of case laws in proving involvement in fraud
- Decision on penalties imposed on transferee appellants

Confirmation of Duty Demand and Interest:
The Commissioner of Customs confirmed a duty demand of ?6,33,082 along with interest on a consignment imported under a fake DEPB license obtained fraudulently against forged documents. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant was not involved in the fraudulent activities. The Tribunal referenced a similar case to confirm the duty demand and set aside the penalties, stating that the appellant could not avail benefits on forged documents.

Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Commissioner also imposed a personal penalty of ?13,95,200 on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Adjudicating Authority found no specific evidence implicating the appellant in the forgery of the license. The Tribunal held that the appellant, not being involved in fraudulent activities, should not be penalized, and thus set aside the penalties while upholding the duty demand and interest.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as they were not involved in fraud or collusion. The Tribunal reviewed case laws and concluded that demands against the appellants were not time-barred, citing instances where the extended period was justified due to deliberate suppression of facts by the original license holder.

Applicability of Case Laws in Proving Involvement in Fraud:
The appellant relied on various case laws to support their argument of non-involvement in fraud. The Tribunal analyzed these references and found that the appellant, though not directly implicated in the forgery, could not benefit from the forged DEPB license. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud vitiates everything, and even if no collusion or fraud was found on the appellant's part, they would still be liable to pay duty and interest for using a forged document.

Decision on Penalties Imposed on Transferee Appellants:
While confirming duty demands and interest, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed on transferee appellants should be set aside as they had no knowledge of the nature of goods used and exported by the manufacturers/exporters. The Tribunal modified the impugned order to uphold duty demands and interest while setting aside the penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside penalties but upholding duty demands and interest, based on the appellant's lack of involvement in fraudulent activities and the legal principles surrounding the use of forged documents in customs matters.