9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef Controller of Imports and Exports passed an order whereby L.D. Textiles and their directors were debarred from making any imports, receiving import licences/CCPs, buying from canalising agencies and importing any goods under OGL up to March, 2000. In 1995 M/s. Obron Impex Pvt. Ltd. was formed. The directors were Ajay Mehra son of J.K. Mehra and Sachin Mehra son of V.K. Mehra. In August, 1997 certain goods were imported by Obron Impex. Pursuant to an information that Obron was a front company created to overcome the obstacle of debarment, the customs monitoring such imports. Polyester staple fibre imported by Obron was seized. Statements of the con cerned persons were recorded and documents seized from their premises were examined. The in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that Obron is the front company of M/s. L.D. Tex tiles Industries Ltd. for doing import export work on behalf of M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. " This fact was also illustrated in the statements of R.G.K. Nair, Purchase Supervisor. The statement of Sachin Mehra later recorded indicated the mutual shareholding of the two companies. Sachin in his later statement also gave complete details of the financial transactions between the two companies and reiterated that the present imports were meant for L.D. Textiles through the front company. Similar averments were made by V.K. Mehra also. Shri J.M. Mehra also fully supported these state ments. Ajay Mehra the other director of Obron corroborated these facts. The show cause notice also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods could not be termed as prohibited goods. Attention was invited to Clause 11(4) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 whereby goods covered under OGL were held as not prohibited goods. It was claimed that Obron was the real importers in terms of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act. In this respect reference was made to the Tribunal judgment in the case of Dhirubhai N. Sheth v. CC, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 697 as also the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sampatraj Dugar Another - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) = 1992 (39) ECR 189. It was further claimed that once the appropri ate authority had finalised the assessment under Section 47 no show cause notice such as this could be issued. Case law in support was cited. Plea on limitation was advanced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation of the goods and also in determining the identity of the importer, the relationship between two entities was necessary to be established. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. We have carefully perused the show cause notice which is extremely well documented and stems from an enquiry made in a competent manner. On perusal of the evidence disclosed therein there is little doubt that the two companies, although separate legal entities on record, were in fact a single entity. Learned counsel at the time of personal hearing also did not make a very serious attempt to counter the averments in the show cause notice. 6. In the cited judgment in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The various case law on which reliance placed do not come to their rescue. The Clause 6(1) of the Import (Control) Order does not afford any protection against the action taken under Clause (8) of that Order. As regards the submission that once the assessment is finalized under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, the assessment cannot be reopened, we find that in the cited judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 43 (Del.) there exit a rider and caution. The judgment says that the assessment reaches finality unless it is shown successfully that there was fraud or deliberate suppression of facts. The suppression very clearly exists in the present case and therefore the protection of the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em to be reasonable and do not interfere therewith. 12. We have given careful consideration to the pleas advanced on the imposition of penal ties on the directors of the two companies. It is claimed that the company, namely M/s. L.D. Textiles Ind. Ltd. was prohibited from importing any goods, but the prohibition did not extend to the directors thereof. It is claimed that the directors had independent identity and were entirely free to import the subject goods in their individual capacities. We find little merit in this plea since the debarment order itself prohibits the directors also. We also find little merit in the plea made in the appeal memorandum that the debarment order is still under challenge before the High Court. 13. We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
