9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits in these Revision Applications and the same are here by rejected. - 371/31-33/DBK/ 2008-RA-Cus - 231-233/2010-Cus. - Dated:- 29-7-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri B.B. Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant. [Order]. These three Revision Applications have been filed by the Applicant M/s. Vishwanath Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 113/2007 Misc. ACC (Dbk) dated 23-11-2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai in the matter arising out of Order-in-Original Nos. (i) CAO/JC/DP/15/2007 dated 21-2-2007 as passed by jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Customs (Exports) (ii) CAO/JC/DP/46/2007 Adj. ACC dated 30-4-2007 as passed by jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Customs (Export) and (iii) CAO/JC/DP/47/2007 Adj. ACC dated 30-4-2007 as passed by jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Customs (Export) all of Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Andheri (E), Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of these cases are that Central Intelligence Unit of air Cargo Complex, Mumbai seized goods declared as Gear Cutting Tools of Cobalt Bearing High Speed Gear Cutters attempted to be exported under nine different consignment on 6-12-01 and 7-12-01. The said goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earance effected by the CHA/M/s. Vishwanath Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. (CHA-11/216), its Managing Director Sh., P.V. Raut and its employee Sh. Vikas Mistry and Sh. Prakash Golatkar. 2.3 Order in original CAO No. CAO/JC/DP/47/2007 Adj (ACC) related to export made by M/s. Scope Trading Comp through S/B No. 4717433 dated 29-11-2001 (Drawback amount Rs. 98,280/-), S/B No. 4717438 dated 29-11-2001 (Drawback amount Rs. 98280/-), S/B No. 4717439 dated 29-11-2001 (Drawback amount Rs. 98280/-) and S/B No. 4717440 dated 29-11-2001 (Drawback amount Rs. 98280/-). A drawback amount of Rs. 294840/- was sanctioned to and received by M/s. Scope Trading Comp in his SBI, ACC account and the same was recovered by C.I.U, ACC. In respect of S/B No. 4717440, the drawback amount of Rs. 98280/- was not disbursed to the party. As regards the foreign exchange remittances, it was intimated by the Sangli Bank Ltd., SBS Road, Fort, Mumbai that the impugned exporter (current A/C No. 1964) does not have any banking relations with them. Inquiries conducted revealed that the address of M/s. Scope Trading Comp. and its proprieter, Sh. Abdul Razzak Mansuri was fictitious. The alleged proprietor also did not appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to or produced by the Department against the Appellant. 3.4 The material facts on record would indicate that the principles of natural justice were not followed in as much as the request for adjournment of hearing sent through Courier service could not reach the Adjudicating Authority and yet he proceeded to pass an ex parte order. The findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) that ample opportunities were given to the Appellant is not borne out by facts. 3.5 The findings of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) to the effect that Shri P.V. Raut, Managing Director of the Appellant Company could not adduce any evidence for his not being available in Mumbai during September to November, 2001, when the alleged offences were committed and therefore, to held that the Managing Director willfully made false statements and allegations against the employees/persons and that he was totally involved in filing the shipping bills examination of cargo and completion of other formalities is purely based on unwarranted surmises and conjectures and not based on any independent evidence or material facts. 3.6 The conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been properly followed. (ii) Impugned goods were allowed to be exported after due check/Inspection by Customs. (iii) Cases are based on recorded statements only. (iv) They are neither responsible nor connected with said non existing exporters. (v) They have not cont ravened Regulations of the Customs House Agent Regulation 2004. (vi) In absence of any material evidence, absence of said exporter and non-availability of (alleged) goods of no-commercial value as already having been crossed to abroad, such conclusions are not maintainable. Finally the applicant as per their (own) analysis and conclusion has termed the impugned orders as not sustainable in law. 7. From the case records available before this authority Government notes that the matter under reference originated with the seizure and investions based on Intelligence inputs of the Central Intelligence Unit (Customs) of Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. It is a fact on record that exporters/export firms were found to be fictitious and non-existent after proper investigations and after providing enough opportunities to all concerned to tender their submission. 8. Further conclusions of the investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
