9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But in any case, when a complaint which is of serious nature is received, the authority has initiated investigation into the same and hence, we find that the subsequent letters/request made by the assessee while the investigation was on, were only to distract the progress of the investigation. There is also a serious issue as to the signatures in document accompanying the bills of entry: assessee s manager categorically denies some of the signature as his own insofar as some of the signatures are concerned; he clearly says that there were some differences, which fact has not at all been denied by the assessee in any of his pleadings either before the lower authority or before us. Hence, the fact that there were differences in signature s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri G. Derrick Sam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Additional Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER These appeals are filed by the assessee and the appellant has a strange history. The source of the case appears to be from a letter written by the assessee himself to the Department dated 10.12.2012. 2. In the said letter, the assessee had alleged a serious issue as to the misuse of its IEC, as the alleged misuse is a very serious issue, the Revenue issued an alert in the EDI system of its New Custom House, thereafter referred the pending/live bills-of-entry of the appellant-assessee to the Special Intellig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee/his manager as to the filing of bills-of-entry under self-clearance basis, since during its investigation, it clearly emerged that no such request for self-clearance basis was ever made by the assessee or in the name of the assessee s firm. 6. Thus, in view of contrary statements after creating sufficient confusions starting from his own letter, a Show Cause Notice dated 28.06.2013 came to be issued, proposing therein as to the confiscation of goods imported as per bills-of-entry nos. 8761027, 8713098 and 8695651. It was also proposed in the Show Cause Notice as to imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on both the assessee as well as his manager. 7. It emerges from the Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. On 12.12.2012, the assessee had specifically written to the Revenue that the above three bills-of-entry were of the assessee himself, and that he had filed the bills-of-entry with the Customs. The appellant had not referred to the above bills-of-entry in his letter dated 10.12.2012, but still the same was referred to the SIIB for further investigation. The assessee had clearly and specifically written to the respondent that the goods covered in the above bills-of-entry were his, but however, merely going by minor variation in the signature in the documents filed for clearance, it was held by the Department that the goods in question were not that of the assessee. The Department, having denied that the goods did belong to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. He would also contend that it is not the question of minor variation in the signature, but the person who is alleged to have signed has himself admitted that there is either change in the same or that the same was not his signature; hence assessee clearly knew as to who had affixed signature on the documents, but however, has not revealed the same, the same clearly amounts to forgery which is very serious in nature and hence, the contentions of the Ld. Advocate are clearly without any basis and devoid of any merits. 10. The details of the air way bills and the corresponding bills-of-entry filed for clearance of the goods in question are as given below: Sl. No. AWB No. Bill-of-E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate before us, since we find that the same has origin in the letter dated 10.12.2012 filed by the assessee himself. It is also a fact borne on record that while the assessee categorically admits that signatures were by his manager, but his manager denies having signed on all the documents; he also denies some of the signatures and points out that there were differences in respect of some of the signatures. This aspect has not been explained by the assessee in any way. The appellant has nowhere tried to explain this, nor has there been any request for cross-examination of its manager who disputed the signature. 12.2 In the synopsis filed before us, it has been clearly admitted that in the clearance process, the assessee himself had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
