9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty has been appropriated towards this demand. The authority has also ordered confiscation of the goods in question under Section 113(d) of the Act. It has imposed a fine of Rs. 20 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. The authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 114 of the Act on the appellants for wilfully and intentionally committing fraud . The present applications seek waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the outstanding demands. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appellants had exported steel utensils etc. under 56 Shipping Bills claiming DEPB benefit during 1999-2002. These exports were to Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Customs authorities found shortage of qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scope of the notice, chose to impose a penalty on them under Section 114 of the Act and (d) in any case, Section 28 of the Customs Act was not invocable for recovery of DEPB credit as held by the Tribunal in Rammapati Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, 2006 (203) E.L.T. 107 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. The case of the Revenue as put across by learned SDR is that it was within the competence of the Customs authorities to verify the export documents and find out as to whether there was any misdeclaration of quantity, value etc. of the goods and, in the event of any such misdeclaration being found, to launch action against the exporter. It is said that this is what happened in this case. However, learned SDR has not cited any judicial autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act. The demand is for an amount equivalent to the DEPB credit availed by the appellants in respect of the above exports. The question which is to be considered is whether such availment was correct or not. In terms of the Board s Circular ibid, and the decision of the Tribunal in Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC Mumbai, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.- Mumbai), this question could appropriately be dealt with by the licensing authority. This is precisely what has happened, in this case, in the parallel proceedings before the DGFT. It is stated that the order passed by the said authority is presently under appeal to the appellate authority under the FT (D R) Act. On these facts, we are inclined to grant waiver of predeposit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
