9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 31-12-2004 Rs. 75,78,417/- C/150/2005 OIA No. 30/2005-Cus.(B) dated 24-3-2005 Rs. 75,78,417/- C/60/2005 2. The appellants are the importers of edible oils through Mangalore Port. They filed two Into Bond Bills of Entry dated 18-2-2003 and 6-3-2003 for import of crude palmolein and warehoused the same in their customs bonded warehouse. Later they filed Ex-Bond Bills of Entry for the clearance of the goods. They filed DEPB scrips and TRAs for the purpose of discharging the duty liability. The bills of entry were assessed provisionally and the goods were cleared by debiting the duty amount in the DEPB scrips in terms of Notification No. 45/2002-Customs dated 22-4-2002 as amended. A detailed investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion or wilful misstatement by either the importer or Shri K.S. Saravan, Manager. Hence he did not find any justification to invoke the provisions of Section 112(a) against Shri K.S. Saravan or Section 114(A) against the importer. The appellants challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner. 3. Shri B.N. Gururaj, learned advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Bhatt, SDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned advocate adduced the following arguments :- (i) The issue in this appeal is not of claiming the benefit of DEPB against allegedly forged documents, but whether the proviso to Section 28(1) is applicable at all, when the Commissioner has given clear finding that there is no evidence of the importer or his age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the Commissioner s observation that the above said duty liability has not been discharged. Since the importers acted bonafidely, they were not liable for any penalty. However, the fact remains that duty liability has not yet been discharged. Since, the assessments were provisional and had not been finalized, the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order ordered finalisation of the provisional assessment. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The fact that the DEPB scrips were forged is not doubt in view of the DGFT s correspondence with the Nhava Sheva Customs Authorities. Once it is found that the DEPB scrips are forged, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were aggrieved over the above order and approached the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has given the following findings and order :- 6. From what has been discussed herein above, I find that, this matter of forged DEPBs (3 in number) being utilized by the appellants for the discharge of duty liability amounting to Rs. 75,78,417/- has already been agitated, heard and finalized by the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore and who has already passed an order dated 31-12-2004, in the matter. The appellants have stated the lower authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appg.), Mangalore, has merely passed the order dated 7-1-2005, without giving the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarge of obligation, the department alone cannot, seek to revive the bond on the ground that it has not cancelled it. 9. The learned SDR submitted that the Commissioner (A) has remanded the issue to the Original Authority after giving suitable opportunity to the appellants to represent the case. Therefore, he urged that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 10. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The thrust of the learned advocate s argument is that on submission of the Bill of Lading the assessment ought to have been finalized. This contention is not acceptable. It is a fact that goods were cleared on the basis of the forged DEPB scrips. Though, the appellants acted bonafidely, the exchequer has been put t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
