9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motilal Bros. Rs. 5 lakhs on S. Baranwal of Motilal Bros. and Rs. One lakh each on Vasant Ajmera, partner of Mayur Chemicals who disposed of 3 consignments imported duty free and Shri Sunil Jethanand Shah, partner of Mayur Chemicals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on information regarding misuse of Import-Export Passbook and diversion of duty free imported materials by sale in the local market and trafficking of such Passbook through brokers, officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai commenced investigations and found that M/s. Motilal Bros. (hereinafter referred to as Importers) had obtained DEEC Pass Book 0011275 dtd. 30-3-89. Statements of clearing agents Shri Mahindra Shrimankar of M/s. Eagle Transport Services, Shri M. Shah of M/s. Shah Mehta and Shri Viraj K. Shah of M/s. Bright Shipping Services were recorded which showed that duty free goods imported by the importer was not being dispatched to the Carpet factory at Varanasi but delivered to Prabhudas Ganatra, Shri Vikram Garodia, Shri Shiv Kumar, Shri Vasant Ajmera and Shri Munilal Mehra. Statements of these 5 persons were recorded wherein they admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals. 3. We have heard Shri V.K. Jain, ld. Counsel for the importer and its partner, (none appears for the other 2 appellants) and Shri K.K. Srivastav, DR for the respondent and perused the records. The claim of the importer is that they utilized 9 consignments of dyes in their factory for manufacture of carpets which were exported. In support of this contention, they relied upon Form 31 issued by the Sales Tax Department, contingent voucher of payment made to driver of vehicle which transported 8 consignments to their factory and an extract of their ledger and consumption register maintained by them in their factory. We find that out of the above 9 consignments, Prabhudas Ganatra and Vikram Garodia received 4 consignments pursuant to their paying premium and the cif value of the goods to Shri Surendra Baranwal. The details of these 4 consignments are as under :- Sr. No. Item Qty B/E No. 1. Dyes Rubine 1000 kgs 1590 5-7-90 2. Dyes Blue RX 1350 kgs 1663 29-7-90 3. Sulphur Bradux 2000 kgs 1908 28-8-90 4. Dyes Chrome Blue 2000 kgs 1908 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the movement of the goods to their factory at Varanasi. In respect of P.V.A. and Rangolite 'C', Shri Vasant Ajmera and Shri Sunil Jethanand Shah partners of M/s. Mayur Chemicals had corroborated the statements of Shri Mukesh Shah of M/s. shah Mehta and admitted that they had sold P.V.A. and Rangolite 'C' imported under B/E dated 21-8-90 and 3-9-90 in league with Shivkumar on commission basis. In respect of the consignment of 6,000 kgs. of P.V.A. for which the clearing agent was M/s. Bright Shipping Services, the importer had claimed that this consignment was received by them under lorry receipt No. BMY-206 and produced a copy of lorry receipt showing the lorry Number as MP-9-D-406. the receipt does not indicate the amount of freight charges. On the other hand, the Form 31 shows the lorry No. as MH-04-C-1239. As per the 'N' form the consignment is shown as having left Mumbai on 3-8-90 but form 31 has been signed on 5-9-90 and further the importer claimed that this goods reached their factory on 15-1-91 i.e. after a gap of 5 months. They have not offered any explanation as to where the goods were lying during this period after their clearance from customs. Although, the importer cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the local market, have claimed that their statements were not voluntary and even in their defence reply they have admitted that the goods were diverted to the local traders. We agree with the Commissioner that the retractions by Shri Prabhudas Ganatra and Shri Vikram Garodia do not in any way alter the findings based on documentary evidence and on oral evidence that the goods were sold in the local market contrary to the condition of duty free import. The importer's reliance upon the order dated 9-10-1995 in the case of Mobarak Ali Khan Sons , order dated 24-10-1995 in the case of Tiwari Carpets Palace and order dated 28-5-1996 in the case of A.K. Carpets of the Commissioner on identical set of evidence that the case of diversion has not been made out by the Revenue, and that such orders have become final as they have not been reviewed, does not advance their case as, such orders are not binding upon the Tribunal which is free to come to its independent conclusion. Their grievance that cross-examination of persons whose statements were recorded was not allowed and that this has resulted in contravention of natural justice is also not well founded in the face of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
