9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be unchallengeable qua the appellant also. It is to be noted that the appellant did admit to export documents having been received through an unconnected person. While that, of itself, may not lead to the conclusion of being aware of the fabric used or the value of purchase, it, nevertheless, should have been sufficient cause for caution as to satisfy himself about the veracity of the declarations being made. The role of the appellant in filing the declarations in the shipping bill, and responsibility thereof, is not in dispute. Consequently, recourse to section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is not inappropriate. The fastening of penalty was on account of confiscation solely in the absence of defence. Moreover, there is no finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gravity of alleged consequence. 2. The appellant had filed 3 nos. shipping bills, viz., no. 8547510/11.06.2001, 8547238/11.06.2001 and 8547512/11.06.2001, for export of 25,524 pieces of ready made garments valued at ₹ 91,63,503 against claim for drawback of ₹ 9,54,699. The test reports intimated that the impugned goods were found to have been made from knitted/woven fabric of cotton yarn contrary to the claim of being made from manmade fibre which was never refuted by the exporters despite several opportunities offered. Based on market survey and in the absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary from the exporter, the declared value was rejected under the authority of rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learance. The act of CHA proved beyond doubt that they had abetted and connived with the exporter in getting inadmissible drawback claims, which attracts penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. a. Their version was that they were not aware of the fraud committed by the exporter. I find that the CHA had cleared around 21 consignments in the past. As per their version they had verified the IEC on line. It means that they knew the fact that Shri Deepak Kumar Arora was the proprietor of the firm and the person who used to give documents on behalf of M/s Pearl Enterprises was not the proprietor of the exporting firm. Even though they knew this fact, they did not respond and did not stop clearing the consignments of M/s Pearl Enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of procurement prior to entering of goods for export to be cognizant of the fabric used or the purchase value. It is only owing to absence of any defence on the part of the exporter that the facts came to be unchallengeable qua the appellant also. 6. However, we cannot fail to take note that the appellant did admit to export documents having been received through an unconnected person. While that, of itself, may not lead to the conclusion of being aware of the fabric used or the value of purchase, it, nevertheless, should have been sufficient cause for caution as to satisfy himself about the veracity of the declarations being made. The role of the appellant in filing the declarations in the shipping bill, and responsibility thereof, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
