9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the Appellant are observed, it is clear that only charge against the Appellant is towards preparing the fake documents showing fulfillment of Export Obligations in a fraudulent manner with the active connivance and participation of the Customs Staff posted at Tikona Land Customs Station. On the other hand, the Adjudicating Authority himself has held that no proper evidence is found towards their (Customs Officers) involvement in the fraud. In such a case, the allegation that the Appellant has actively colluded with the Customs officials cannot legally sustain. Therefore, on this ground, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is set aside. The same set of facts were before the Hon ble Tribunal wherein the present Appellant was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant makes the following submissions:- (i) M/s Garg Trading Co. ( the Appellant ), is engaged in trading of food grains. (ii) By notice dated June 19, 1992, various importers were called upon to show cause as to why the benefit of exemption under the Advance Authorisation Scheme should not be denied to them, as the authorisations were allegedly obtained without actual exports. The allegation against the appellant was that in connivance with the customs authorities, he had prepared fake export documents. The allegations against the appellant was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence (iii) After a long gap of 25 years, the notice has been adjudicated by Order dated November 30, 2018, by which a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. However, the Appellant did not receive any communications/ letters including personal hearing notice etc. and no reasonable opportunity of furnishing a reply or making oral submissions was provided to the Appellant in 25 years. The Impugned Order has been passed ex parte, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (viii) The Appellant submits that there are no findings in the impugned order giving any reasons for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act or specifying any act or role warranting such penalty. (ix) The only allegation against the Appellant is that the Bills of Exports and the related documents relied upon by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Appellants has been produced by the Learned Counsel. She submits that the impugned Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the Appellant should be set aside on merits. 4. The Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and justifies the confirmed demand. 5. I have perused the Appeal Papers and all the other documents submitted. The present Show Cause Notice was issued on 19/06/1992 (Para 40 of the OIO). As pointed out by the Appellant, adjudication proceedings were not taken up for the next more than 17 years. It is seen from the OIO Para 45.12 that PH was fixed on 14/6/2009, 28/06/2009 and on subsequent dates within the next one or two months. On 11/7/2009, the Advocate on behalf of Noticee No. 1 to 7 has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly showed that none of the goods in question were exported by the said various firms belonging to Rastogi family from Delhi to Nepal via Tikonia and the claim to that effect made on the basis of 208 Bills of Exports and related documents was nothing but a mere exercise on paper made possible by active connivance and participation of the Customs staff posted at Tikonia Land Customs Station and Shri Jai Narain Garg, in preparing the fake documents showing fulfillment of Export Obligations in a fraudulent manner. [Emphasis supplied] 8. Further it is seen that this OIO mentions about the summons being issued by DRI to the Inspector Shri R. K. Singh and Superintendent, Shri S. C. Gupta. The relevant portion of Para 39 of the OIO is reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, Inspector and Shri S. C. Gupta, Superintendent the SCN does not have adequate details about their involvement in the fraud. There are no specific acts of fraud, forgery or dereliction of duty cited. The allegation against them is made in general terms, i.e. it is simply said that they actively connived and participated in the offence when they were posted in the Land Customs Station at Tikonia. However there is no mention or evidence of the exact nature of their participation and connivance in the fraud. In view of such unsubstantiated charged, I am constrained to find them not guilty. They may however be found guilty through other evidences not brought on record in this subject case. [Emphasis supplied] 11. When the charges against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
