9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPB licences but said that he was not aware that they were obtained based on forged Bank Realisation Certificates. He also said that he kept no record of the licences which he sold and received commission in cash. In the subsequent statement dated 10.4.2014, he agreed that he had prepared/created forged Bank Realisation Certificates against exports and submitted them to DGFT and obtained DEPB licences and sold them. Evidently, the appellant has, by his role discussed above, caused fraudulently obtained DEPB certificates to be used in the Bills of Entry filed by the importer which, in our considered view, falls squarely within the scope of Section 114AA - The judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. It is found that nobody has been appearing during the past few hearings also. On 28.2.2023, the following order was passed. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue submits that the issue is covered by the precedent decisions of this Tribunal. List on March 23, 2023. As the matter has been listed on several dates the appellant does not appear, the matter may be decided on merits on the basis of the records. 2. Today, when the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant. There is also no request for adjournment. We have heard learned authorised representative for the Revenue and perused the records. We find that there is no prayer in the appeal. There are S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962 for import made under bill of entry No. 6676015 dated 28.04.2012 by M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. and interest, at appropriate rate, thereof under section 28AA of the said Act. (2) I order for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 11,71,096/- imported under bill of entry No. 6676015 dated 28.04.2012 under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow the said confiscated goods to be redeemed against payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in terms of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. (the Importer) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (4) I impose penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her cases involving the sale of various DEPB licences obtained from DGFT based on forged documents which is highly misplaced. 7. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue submits that the impugned order is correct and calls for no interference and there is no force in the appeal. He also points out that since there is not even a prayer in this appeal nor has anyone appeared, the Tribunal cannot grant any relief. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. It is undisputed that the appellant had sold these DEPB licences to M/s. Whirlpool India and these licences were obtained from DGFT by submitting forged documents. In his statement dated 7.1.2013, the appellant admitted to having sold these DEPB licences bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions to the unsuspecting importers through market based brokers and commission agents; vii) Enjoying the benefit of sale proceeds of such fraud. 8.3 The gist of the quantum of the Customs fraud committed by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Kohli and his accomplices/associates, detected by Marine and Preventive Wing, Mumbai is as below : (Rs. In lakhs) Sr. No. Export firm Customs duty credit involved Remarks 1. M/s Great India Exports Imports (IEC 0309069319) 15.95 (pertaining to two licenses now under investigation) 7 DEPB licenses involving Rs. 55.89 Lakhs of duty benefits were obtained from DGFT, Mumbai on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraudulently obtained DEPB certificates to be used in the Bills of Entry filed by the importer which, in our considered view, falls squarely within the scope of Section 114AA. The judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Sanjay Agarwal relied upon by the appellant was in the context of penalty under section 112 and not under section 114AA. At the time the SCN was issued in that case (on 24.9.2001), section 114AA did not even exist. Section 114AA was introduced with effect from 13.7.2006. Therefore, this case law does not carry the case of the appellant any further. 11. The decision in Fast Cargo Movers relied upon by the appellant was on a completely different footing. In that case, the appellant was a Customs Broker which filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
