2024 (11) TMI 485 - AT - Customs

Denial of adjournment request - Release of goods on the basis of forged documents leading to fraud - Customs clearance of imported mobile phones with duplicate IMEI numbers - Failure to provide evidence of bona fide actions in releasing goods HELD THAT - Perusal of the statement of Director of appellant, it is apparent that when he was asked about the Out of Charge order No. 1024532 written in the in Bond Register , he acknowledged that his staff had made a mistake, however, the same was a clerical mistake. But no evidence to support the said statement was produced nor is found annexed with the record of the appeal memo. The statement of appellant s Assistant Manager Shri Rupen Barua rather contains specific admission that release of goods from the warehouse on 11.07.2014 on the basis of the copy of Out of Charge order dated 13.01.2014 is unauthorized removal on the basis of unauthorized documents. He also acknowledged that date on Out of Charge paper has not been checked properly which has been a mistake on his part while ordering Shri Kripal to release the warehoused goods. This is also coming apparent from his statement that after the impugned transaction appellants have never warehouse the goods of CHA M/s. Swati Enterprises/importer M/s. Joon Exim. The said Shri Kripal also vide his statement has admitted of committing mistake of clearing the consignment from the warehouse without checking the documents properly. The admissions are the best evidence which need not to be proved in terms of 52 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972. Otherwise also, as already observed above, there is no evidence on record produced by the appellant to show any bona fide while getting the goods released which otherwise are proved/admitted to have been released based on the improper un-genuine Out of Charge order. The appellant instead of proving the bona fide, if any, has rather opted to either seek the adjournment after adjournment. The only apparent motive is an intent to delay the proceedings or to remain absent despite the last warnings. No reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the original adjudicating authority. Order is upheld and appeal is hereby dismissed on merits also for want of prosecution on part of the appellant.

Issues:
1. Denial of adjournment request due to repeated adjournments and absence of appellant.
2. Release of goods on the basis of forged documents leading to fraud.
3. Customs clearance of imported mobile phones with duplicate IMEI numbers.
4. Unauthorized release of detained goods and lack of proper procedure.
5. Failure to provide evidence of bona fide actions in releasing goods.
6. Dismissal of appeal on merits and for want of prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of denying an adjournment request due to the appellant's repeated absences without valid reasons. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple adjournments previously granted, the appellant failed to justify their absence adequately. The Departmental Representative objected to the adjournment, highlighting the history of numerous adjournments already on record. The Tribunal referred to a previous order granting one last opportunity to the appellant, emphasizing that no further adjournments would be allowed. Consequently, the adjournment request was denied, and the Tribunal proceeded with the decision despite the appellant's absence.

2. The judgment delves into the issue of the release of goods based on forged documents, constituting a clear case of fraud. The Departmental Representative argued that 75 cartons of mobile phones were released using a backdated forged 'Out of Charge' order, despite directions from the High Court not to release the detained goods. The appellant's actions were deemed fraudulent as the released mobile phones were found to have duplicate IMEI numbers, leading to a violation of intellectual property rights. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the original order's findings and prayed for the appeal to be dismissed on both merits and for want of prosecution.

3. The judgment discusses the customs clearance of imported mobile phones with duplicate IMEI numbers. The importer declared the phones as Chinese models but upon examination, they were found to be of the Micromax brand. Micromax confirmed that the phones bore duplicate IMEI numbers, indicating a violation of intellectual property rights. Despite permission to store the goods for investigation, the goods were released without following proper procedures, leading to legal complications and subsequent detention of specific mobile phone packets.

4. The issue of unauthorized release of detained goods and lack of adherence to proper procedures is addressed in the judgment. The Tribunal highlighted that despite a court order denying the release of detained goods, the appellants managed to release the goods without following the appropriate protocol. The 'Out of Charge' order used for release was found to be unrelated to the detained packets, indicating a breach of customs regulations and unauthorized removal of goods from the warehouse.

5. The judgment scrutinizes the appellant's failure to provide evidence of bona fide actions in releasing the goods. Statements from the appellant's Director and Assistant Manager revealed admissions of unauthorized release based on improper documents. The appellant's attempts to justify the actions were deemed insufficient, as no concrete evidence supporting bona fide intentions was presented. The admissions of unauthorized release and lack of proper verification of documents further strengthened the case against the appellant.

6. Finally, the judgment concludes by dismissing the appeal on merits and for want of prosecution on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the original adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence to refute the allegations of fraud and unauthorized release of goods. The appellant's repeated attempts to delay proceedings through adjournments were viewed as intentional, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the established facts and legal violations.

← Previous Next →