9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be the proper officers under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 but as no retrospective amendment carried out in the said rule so far as conformation of jurisdiction by DRI officers for issuance of show-cause notice is concerned, therefore, the DRI officers have no jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice for recovery of erroneously drawback claim under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - - Fraudulent export of bicycle parts under export execution (sic : promotion) scheme like drawback DEPB etc. - Availed excess drawback claim erroneously - Held that:- the impugned goods was examined at the port of shipment and no single discrepancy was detected in regard to description, quality, quantity or value of the goods. All the consignments were examined found to be correct and the goods were assessed, thereafter let export order was issued. Further, it is found that no incriminating documents found by DRI during the course of search at the residence of various partners or the officers of the appellants. The only allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porting units and has imposed penalties upon them as detailed below:- Sl. No. Company's name Drawback (in Rs.) Penalty (in Rs.) 1. M/s. Monte International, Ludhiana 30,33,220 6,00,000 2. M/s. Monte Metals, Ludhiana 22,22,280 6,00,000 3. M/s. M K International 7,10,870 1,00,000 2. In addition to confirming the drawback given to the said three exporting units, penalty of ₹ 40 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Kulbhushan Goyal, son of Shri Ramesh Goyal and penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Ramesh Goyal in terms of provisions of section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. As per the facts on record, three units are engaged in the manufacture and export of various cycles parts. The dispute in the present appeal relates to forty one consignment of bicycle parts exported by the appellant to Iran, Tehran and Egpt under the claim of drawback. As per the appellants the said exports wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destination as agreed upon and as mentioned in the Bill of lading. Bill of lading was prepared on the basis of their surveyor report (stuffing report) and E. P. copy dully signed by Customs officers and port of discharge and place of delivery on the bill of lading is given on the basis of shipping bills/E P copy. Their claim that the bill of discharge in the bill of lading could not be different from that mentioned on EP copy/shipping bills. He produced one bill of lading relatable to consignment in question whereas the final destination was shown as Jabel Ali. (Dubai). On showing bill of lading produced by the appellants wherein the final destination was shown as Bandar Abbas (Iran), he admitted that there were discrepancy in the two bills of lading. 7. When the bill of lading produced by Shri Navdeep Goyal Branch Manager of Shipping line was shown to Shri Kulbhashan Goyal, he deposed that inasmuch as the same was a photocopy, he doubted the authenticity of the same. The concerned shipping line should be called for verifying its authenticity 8. The DRI also conducted inquiries at Dubai port and procured a letter dated 10.12.03 from. Consulate General of India, wherein he re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in respect of weight, number and value, as declared by the appellant. It is only thereafter, the 'let go' order by the Customs authorities was passed and the said order having not been challenged by the Customs authorities by way of filing any appeal thereagainst, the Revenue is debarred from contending that consignment was not as per the declaration. They have also challenged the result of overseas inquiries by submitting that the said report is only in respect of 5 consignments and for the reasons best known to the Dubai parties the goods stand auctioned. Based upon the said report, the entire duty draw-back claim by the appellant cannot be denied. As regards non-existence of M/s. Clarion Logistics Middle East, it stand submitted that said company is a multi-national company having its office all over the world. The address of the M/s. Clarion Logistics was produced on record from the Internet in support of the submissions that said company is in existence. Reliance was also placed upon various decision of the judicial as also quasi-judicial authorities. 11. The adjudicating authority however, did not find favour with the above submissions and passed the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been effected, either by the Board or by the Commissioner of Customs, can be held to be competent to issue notice under section 28 of the Act. As such, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev), who was having territorial jurisdiction but not the jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under section 28 was held as not proper officer in terms of said section. The contention of the learned advocate is that review petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, filed by the Revenue was dismissed as reported in [2011 (274) ELT A 109. In a subsequent matter in the case of Chandna Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2011 (7) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, the issue as to whether the officer of DRI can be considered to be proper officer to demand duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to Hon'ble High Court to decide such substantial question of law in the light of decision in the case of Syed Ali. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Era International v. Union of India 2011 (274) ELT 6 and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sree Enterprises v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me has to repay the same; Though we note that said Rule 16 does not, in clear terms, refers to issuance of show-cause notice but the same refers to the demand being made by a Proper Officer of Customs. How this demand has to be made without the issue of show-cause notice and without giving an opportunity to the persons concerned to put-forth his defence as against the alleged excess erroneously granted refund, stands answered by the Board's Circular No. 24/2011 Cus dated 31.5.11, Para 2 of which reads as under: 2. Reference have been received from the field formations for specifying the 'proper officer' for issuance of show-cause notice and adjudication of cases of export under the drawback and Export Promotion Schemes. Further para 5 of the said Circular reads as under: 5. Further, it has been decided that the proper officer for the issuance of show-cause notice and adjudication of cases under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall, henceforth be as under: 16. As is seen from the abovesaid para of Circular, show-cause notices are required to be issued in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence to Supreme Court's judgment is constitutional principle and the Tribunal's Members were bound by rigorous/strict adherence to judicial discipline. CESTAT cannot refuse to apply such Supreme Court decision on grounds that it came after issuance of show-cause notice or after passing the impugned orders or on the ground that issue of jurisdiction was not raised before adjudicating authority. We also took note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Nylex Traders v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [2011 (274) ELT 71 (Tri-Mum) wherein it was observed that the jurisdictional objection can be raised at a later stage also as it goes to the root of the case. Accordingly, by following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Tribunal struck down the show-cause notice issued by Commissioner (Preventive). As such, by applying the ratio of law, declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra) and subsequently followed by various other High Court, it has to be held that DRI officer was not the proper officer for issuance of show-cause notice for the purpose of demand of allegedly erroneously granted excess drawback. Infac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in respect of bill of lading of the relevant exports can be held to be of any evidentiary value when admittedly the bill of lading was neither issued either by him nor during his tenure as Branch Manager of the said shipping line. Further more, the said Navdeep Goyal never appeared for cross-examination in-spite of adjudicating authority issuing summons for the said purpose. It is seen that adjudicating authority has observed that inasmuch as Shri Navdeep Goyal could not tender himself for cross-examination and instead Captain Anil Ratra, Regional Head North India of M/s. IAL Container Line India Ltd. and Shri Anil Sharma, Branch Incharge at Ludhiana appeared for cross-examination but the appellants refused to cross-examine him. As such, he has found fault with the appellants and has held that inasmuch as the said two employees of shipping lines who appeared for cross-examination were not accepted by the appellants for the purpose of cross-examination, the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal can be adopted as an evidence. We find no justification in the above reasoning of the appellant. Admittedly, the revenue has relied upon the statement of Navdeep Goyal and not on the statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Revenue's allegation of the export of substandard goods cannot be upheld. 22. It is also a part of record that goods were admittedly examined at the port of shipment i.e. CFS Ludhiana as also of loading port Mumbai. No single discrepancy was detected by the Inspector in regard to description, quality, quantity or value of the goods. The result of cross-examination of the concerned Superintendent and concerned Inspector reveals that goods were examined and found to be correct and it is only thereafter that the material was stuffed in the containers and allowed for export. In the light of result of such cross-examination which has been ignored by the lower authorities on the sole ground that such an examination was only in respect of 5% of the goods whereas for the goods meant for export to Dubai at least 50% examination is required, it cannot be said that the goods were not examined. When the goods were admittedly meant for export of Iron/Tehran and it is only later on that the Revenue makes an allegation of export to Dubai, examination of the goods conducted by the Superintendent and Inspector cannot be found fault with, especially when there is no other material or evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address of said company through website. Further, there is no such report in respect of other Duabi Merchant Traders and the adjudicating authority has presumed that since the other merchant traders were dealing in the building materials etc., they could not have acted as merchant traders for bicycle parts. Similarly, we find that adjudicating authority has only made an observations simplicitor that the entire realization was made through hawala channels, without referring to any evidence on record to the same effect. In fact, we find that appellants have placed on record, the banks realization certificate indicating the receipt of entire consideration through proper banking channels. 25. As regards the report of the consulate general of India at Dubai indicating that the goods covered by 5 consignment were auctioned at much less price in Dubai cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the appellants exported their goods to Dubai instead of Iran/Tehran. Apart from the fact that said report is only in respect of 5 consignments whereas the drawback is sought to be denied in respect of 41 consignments, we note that once the goods left the territorial water of India, export is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai. Admittedly, the port of discharge on the shipping bills and the EP copy was Bandar Abbas, Tehran and as per the said statement Navdeep Goyal, the same has to be shown on the bill of lading. However, he has failed to show as to whether the port of discharge on the shipping bill and EP copy was different than the one mentioned in the bill of lading in the case of the appellant. Thus, it seems to be a contrary statement made by Shri Navdeep Goyal. 29. Plea has been taken that statement of Navdeep Goyal cannot be relied as at the relevant time of export, he was not incharge. Further it is also held that bill of ladings are prepared by shipping line and goods exported for Iran/Egypt or any Middle East country are to be routed or transported through Dubai port only. Learned Member has also not accepted observation of the adjudicating authority relating to Hawala transaction and have allowed appeal on merits also even though merits have been discussed as academic interest only. 30. I do not agree with the findings recorded by learned Member (J) on jurisdiction as well as on merit. I intend to record my own order on jurisdiction issue as well as on merits. 31. Facts as dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers - Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.) superseded In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 19/90-Customs (N.T.), dated the 26th April, 1990, the Central Government appoints the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below to be the Commissioner of Customs, the officers mentioned in column (3) thereof to be the Additional Commissioners or Joint Commissioners of Customs and Officers mentioned in column (4) thereof to be the Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Customs for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said Table with effect from the date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette :- Area of Jurisdiction Designation of the officers (1) (2) (3) (4) Whole of India Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence posted at Headquarters and Zonal/regional unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. In the present case, the DRI investigated the matter. The DRI has been given powers of the Customs Officer for the whole of India. Show-Cause Notices have been issued. Just because the DRI officer issued the Show-Cause Notice no prejudice is caused to the appellants and they cannot argue that principles of natural justice have been violated because DRI officer issued the Show-Cause Notice. This is an absurd argument which totally ignores Notification No. 17/2002-Cus.(N.T.). 34. The ratio of this decision of the Tribunal was affirmed in Sri Meenakshi Apparels (P.) Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka went a step further and, apart from holding that the powers of DRI officials to investigate cases and issue show-cause notices was not in dispute, also held that the Director of DRI also had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute. Referring to Notification No.17/2002-Cus (NT) dated 7.3.2002, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under in Para 5: Therefore, the Director of Revenue Intelligence has been conferred with the power of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtue of Section 5(2) of the Act, has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of a subordinate or a lower authority and therefore, the power exercised by the Director of Revenue Intelligence is as stipulated under the Act and therefore, be cannot be found fault with and therefore, he has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and he has adjudicated the said dispute. 35. Admittedly, in this case the recovery of erroneously granted drawback was proposed under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules which is worded differently from Section 28. In view of the available precedent, I am of the view that the recovery of drawback amount cannot be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of DRI officials to issue show-cause notices. Held accordingly. Merit issue 36. However to appreciate the issue on merit in its full matrix, remaining facts already on record are also examined such as:- (a) Statements of all the accused recorded on 19.8.04, 23.08.04, 25.08.04, 16.09.04 and 30.05.2004. (b) Recovery of documents at the residence of Shri Kulbhushan Goyal. (c) Statement of so-called suppliers of cycle parts, items of supply and items which were exported and its relevancy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate and self explanatory. These are on record for perusal. 38. Section 139 (ii) of Customs Act, 1962 is also relevant which makes documents received from outside India in the course of investigation as admissible evidence. 39. Appellants during their statements before customs have contended their stand that they were receiving orders from their agents in Dubai and were consigning so-called cycle parts to Egypt, Iran on the basis of such orders and accordingly they were declaring in their shipping bills. In their support, they also stated that various components/wire were being purchased from various buyers and later they were assembling/manufacturing these and were subsequently exporting these parts under claim for drawback. They also submitted that export proceeds were received through Banking channels and payments were received in advance. 40. Para 5.4,5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 of adjudication order No. 02/Cus/07 dated 21.03.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs throw light on department's investigation. It has been observed about statements made by Shri Kulbhushan Goel and Shri Navdeep Goyal as follow:- 5.4 I find that the noticees had contended that the goods, in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 4825 kgs. He had further stated that in all the three Bills of Lading (i.d.1612724, 1612724A and 1612724B) container No. was CRXU-281449-4 and item exported was Bicycle parts. I find that on being enquired about the discrepancies between the above mentioned three Bills of Lading and B/L No. LUH JEA-1612724, he stated that Bill Lading No. LUH JEA-1612724 shown to him was photocopy and he doubted its authenticity and that the concerned shipping line should be called for verifying its authenticity. 5.6 I find that Shri Navdeep Goyal, Branch incharge of the concerned Shipping Line was also shown the bills of lading No. LUH DXB-1612724, LUH DXB-1612724A, LUH DXB-1612724B and LUH JEA-1612724 and on being enquired about the discrepancies between the first three Bills of Lading and fourth one, he in his statement dated 30.03.2005 stated as under:- (a) The first three B/L NN copies seemed to be forged and prepared by the shipper himself showing final destination as Bandar Abbas and B/L prefix as DXB, (b) that normally term DXB was used for Dubai as destination and for Bandar Abbas 'BND' was used., (c) that on the fourth B/L copy as per their record destination was jeb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prepared on parallel basis. First set was for Tehran. After Customs examination, all goods were consigned to Dubai for which parallel set of bill of ladings were prepared. As per Consulate General's report at Dubai all 41 consignments containing in 12 containers including 5 consignments/shipping bills stuffed in five containers were received at Dubai port. No release of these containers were taken by non-existent importers and later all these containers were auctioned by Dubai Customs. It is on record that all these containers containing junk were disposed off for only 31,000 dh (Rs.3,10,000/-). Once all containers were found at Dubai and later auctioned at Dubai, no question of these consignments being consigned for Iran (Bandar Abbas port) arises. 42. It is also observed that appellants have failed to give any cogent evidence that these containers were sent to Egypt or Tehran and received there. Plea that goods were sent to Tehran via transhipment at Dubai has no legs to stand in view of numerous evidences coming on record evidencing that all containers landed at Dubai which were not got released by anyone and later auctioned. This is further supported by the facts that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under export incentives schemes - investigation regarding - Please refer to Delhi Zonal Unit's letter dated 01.07.2003 and this Unit's reply dated 14.7.2003 to DZU on the above subject. In this connection, it is informed that all the consignments referred to in the abovesaid DZU's letter had already been auctioned by Dubai Customs in addition to below mentioned consignments of Bicycle parts totally for a meagre amount Dhs. 31,000/- only. Sl. No. B.No. Shipper Notify party Description of cargo 1 LUHDXBB1612670 M/s.Monte International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Al Shams Building Material, PB No.12694 Dubai Bicycle Parts 2 LUHDXB1612651 M/s.Monte International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Al Shams Building Material, PB No.12694 Dubai Bicycle Parts 3 LUHDXB162700A M/s.M.k. International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows code of Dubai as LUHDXB. Actually documents filed with the department have indicated different places of destination which were actually fraudulent. No consignments were despatched to such destinations. Details are given in Annexure A, B C as referred above One copy of such letter is reproduced for reference:- Invoice No. VSL/VOY - PHOENIX-144 BL Number -LUHDXB1612651 Container No. CRXU 103105-7 Arrived: 15/12/2002 Cargo Moved for Auction 1/10/2003 Total Number of Days = 290 Days Total Charges: 11,641 (Dhs) = ₹ 1,40,507/- 48. There are other similar invoices raised by M/s.IAL Shipping Agencies (New Delhi) Ltd. (a) Invoice No. DN/LCL/552/2005 BL No. LUHDxB 612731 Number of days =267 Total charges 9346 Dhs =Rs.11,2,806/- (b) Invoice No. DN/LCL/548/2005 BL No. LUHDxB 1612700A Number of days=274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter by asking cross-examination of Shri Navdeep Goyal Branch Manger of Shipping line. Shri Navdeep Goyal did not appear but another official namely Captain Anil Ratra, Branch Incharge M/s.IAL Shipping Line appeared. But appellants insisted on Shri Goyal's cross-examination only. From perusal of facts, it is observed that Mr. Navdeep Goyal has only confirmed about issue of parallel set of Bill of Ladings in the name of Cairo and Tehran importers though actual bill of ladings were for Dubai only. This fact emerged when all containers were put to auction by Dubai Customs and this fact was reported by Consulate General of India at Dubai. 50. Despite clear-cut fraudulent act emerging out of investigations, appellant's insistence of cross-examination of shipping line officials and departmental officers did not have any force. Mere insistence that goods were exported after examination was conducted by the departmental officers does not come to their rescue as investigations have unearthed modus operandi adopted by the appellants as discussed above. Despite non-clearance of containers at Dubai, Advance payment through T.T. (telegraphic transfer) continued to come. No channel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned for a meagre amount of Dhs 31000/- (Rs.3,10,000/- approximately). As realization of foreign proceeds is an essential requirement for the purpose of claiming drawback. I find that the advance payments of the impugned goods were arranged through hawala channels as is apparently clear from fact that the impugned goods had neither reached the buyer in Iran nor the merchant broker in Dubai. It is self explanatory that no prudent businessman would continue making advance payments without receiving the goods in return. Thus it is clear that the Noticees had availed drawback amount of ₹ 59,66,470/- by fraudulent means by mis-declaring the goods both in terms of description and value and by forging various documents. They had also abetted and knowingly participated in illegal transfer of money through hawala channels and suppression of the material facts. Thus they had violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993 and Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules ,1995 and therefore the disbursed amount of drawback appears to be recoverable from them under Rule 16 of Customs Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence of opinion has been referred to me for consideration: Whether appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs is to be rejected on the ground that there is lack of jurisdiction for issue of SCN and when there is fraudulent claim of drawback and evidenced from record requiring recovery on merit as held by Member (Technical) Or Whether appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs is to be allowed in view of findings that there is no jurisdiction with DRI officers to issue SCN and recovery of drawback is not sustainable on merit as held by Member (Judicial). 55. The facts of the case are not in dispute, therefore, the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. 56. As the issue of jurisdiction is a legal issue, therefore, first I deal with the issue whether the show-cause notice issued without jurisdiction or not. 57. I have seen in this case that the show-cause notice has been issued by DRI, Delhi unit and as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995, recovery of any alleged erroneous payment of duty drawback can be demanded by a proper office. 58. The proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... functions of assessment, which of course, would include reassessment, working under the jurisdictional Collectorate within whose jurisdiction the bills of entry or baggage declarations had been filed and the consignments had been cleared for home consumption, will have the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act.' 60. Thereafter Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is having territorial jurisdiction but not the jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under section 28 was held as not a proper officer in terms of said section. A review petition was filed by the Revenue against such decision of the Apex Court has been dismissed by the Apex Court reported in 2011 (274) A 109. 61. Further I find that in the case of Chandna Impex (P.) Ltd. (supra), the issue as to whether the officer of DRI can be considered to be proper officer to demand duty under section 28 of the Customs Act came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to Hon'ble High Court to decide such substantial question of law in the light of decision in the case of Sayed Ali. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough the said rule wherein the excess granted drawback has to be demanded by the proper officer of Customs and recipient of the same has to repay the same. Rule 16 does not, in clear terms, refers to issuance of show-cause notice but the same refers to the demand. Definitely the demand can be made by issuance of show-cause notice after giving an opportunity to personal hearing to concerned recipient of drawback to put forth his defence as against alleged excess erroneously granted. The CBEC Circular No.24/2011-Cus dated 31.5.2011 which reads as under: 2. Reference have received from the field formations for specifying the proper officer for issuance of show-cause notice and adjudication of cases of export under the drawback and export promotion schemes. 5. Further, it has been decided that the proper officer for the issuance of show-cause notice and adjudication of cases under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall, henceforth be as under....... 65. From the said circular, it is clear that the show-cause notices are required to be issued in terms of the provisions of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the goods were assessed, thereafter let export order was issued. Further, I find that no incriminating documents found by DRI during the course of search at the residence of various partners or the officers of the appellants. The only allegation against the appellant is that the Consulate General of India at Dubai has given report dated 10.12.2003 showing that only small fraction of iron was auctioned by Dubai DHS 31000 equivalent to ₹ 3,10,000/-. It was also found that out of 3 merchants/financiers only one company was not found at the address. The allegation of the Revenue is that the good overvalued as the goods have been examined at the end of the supplier also. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the goods were undervalued in the absence of contemporaneous price for the purpose of like kind of goods. I further find that the Revenue is heavily relied on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal representative of shipping agency but he was not made available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said statement cannot be relied on. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant exported bicycles parts which were procured from various suppliers who proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
