9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of DEEC Scheme. The appellant firms are constituted among members of the same family i.e. relations of Shri Maninder Singh. In M/s. Tara Singh Others, father and wife of Mr. Maninder Singh are the Partners and Shri Maninder Singh is the General Power of Attorney Holder. In M/s. Business International Others, his mother and sister-in-law are partners along with Mr. Maninder Singh. The nature of the offence and evidence are similar in respect of both the set of appeals. The provisions of law are also the same. The defence entered by the parties are also the same. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate and advantageous to dispose of all the appeals under this one common order. 4. The appellant firms imported against quantity based advance licences issued under DEEC Scheme, poppy seeds, caraway seeds and small cardamom during the period 1992-1995. The appellants were under obligation to export the goods processed out of these imported goods under the DEEC Scheme. The appellants claimed and were granted duty free clearance of the imported materials under Notification No. 204/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. The duty exemption was also subject to the fulfilment of the expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities concerned with the scheme. He submitted that the licences in the present case had been issued by the Foreign Trade Authorities and those authorities had accepted the proof of export and they had cancelled the undertakings for export. Those authorities had neither cancelled the import licences issued nor taken any action against the appellants for violation of the conditions of the licences or the scheme. They had also not directed the Customs Authorities to take any action with regard to the imported goods. This challenge to the jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities has been made drawing support from the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India v. Oceanic Corporation [2000 (116) E.L.T. 19]. It is surprising that the Counsel has repeated this objection at the appeal stage before us also. This objection had been raised before the adjudicating authority too and that authority had rejected it and had pointed out in the impugned orders that this objection has no validity in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (88) E.L.T. 626] and other decisions of the Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, thus, seen that the entries in copies produced by way of proof of export (Triplicate Copy of shipping Bill) before the Foreign Trade Authorities had been forged by manipulating particulars relating to description of goods and quantity and value of goods. A comparison of the entries regarding description, quantity and value of export goods in, the export documents with the appellants clearing agent s Bill of Export Register, Railway receipts etc. of the appellant also confirmed that the goods actually exported were not the produce from the imported goods and that quantities and values of the exported goods were much less than mentioned in the Triplicate copies of shipping bills. The position in respect of each of the exports has been discussed in the impugned order in detail and the order brings out clearly that, by altering entries in the shipping bills, the appellants sought to satisfy the authorities that they had completed their export obligation. 8. Statements of several persons, including the partners of the firms and Shri Maninder Singh who was Incharge of the appellants operations were recorded to find out the truth about the purported exports. The partners of Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of one licence, Viz. Sl. No. 2, no exports could be made within the validity period of the licence, nor extension of the validity period was applied for. Hence, the licence and the DEEC book were surrendered to the investigating authority. In respect of the remaining four advance licences, instead of the export of the obligated goods, non-traditional item like Ajwain and Ani-sheeds of the total value of Rs. 3,63,410/- were exported. For their failure to export the obligated goods under the DEEC scheme within the validity period of the advance licences, the appellant voluntarily deposited the customs duty payable amounting to Rs. 1,04,48,964/-, as per details below :- Sl. No. Cheque/DD No. and date Name of the bank Name of payee Amount Rs. Remarks 1. (i) (ii) Ch. No. 192210 dt. 5-2-1996 D.D. No. 192344 dt. 10-2-1996 Union Bank of India - do - C.C. Bombay - do - 5,50,000 1,41,404 6,91,404 Two demand drafts/cheques deposited in the name of CC, Bombay, at Bombay C.H. vide cash entry No. 5839. 2. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artners of the firms are set aside. These are cases involving evasion of customs duty through deliberate fraud. We have no doubt in our mind that penalties are fully justified. With regard to the quantum of penalties imposed we find that a penalty of Rs. 2 crore has been imposed on M/s. Business International when the duty amount was about Rs. 1.7 crore, while a penalty of Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on M/s. Tara Singh Sons when the duty amount involved was Rs. 1.04 crore. Taking into account the relative amounts of duty involved in both the cases, we confirm the penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed on M/s. Tara Singh Sons and reduce the penalty imposed on M/s. Business International to Rs. 1.5 crore. Amounts of penalties imposed on the appellant firms closely reflect the duty amounts evaded. Penalty of Rs. 2 crores has been imposed on Shri Maninder Singh for his role in the evasion of duty by M/s. Tara Singh Sons, Amritsar. The evidence in the case clearly shows that both the partners of the offending firms were sleeping partners and Shri Maninder Singh was managing the entire affairs of the firm as General Power of Attorney holder of the firm. Shri Maninder Singh is the person p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
