9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi by changing date and value for these scrips. It was observed that the licence dated 05.09.2013 was issued to M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi for duty amount of Rs. 10,00,840/-, however, the licence got fraudulently registered at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and was utilized by appellant Sumit Anand for appellant - M/s Anand Enterprises for payment of customs duty of Rs. 4,90,883/- against the bill of entry No. 3296301 dated 17.09.2013. 3. In the voluntary statement dated 28.04.2018 Shri Sumit Anand, the partner of M/s Anand Enterprises stated that the licence was purchased by the appellants from M/s Connect India, Paharganj, New Delhi against invoice No. 280 on Book No. 6 dated 18.09.2013 against the payment of Rs. 5,25,224/- made through RTGS. However, after due investigations, department served the appellant with a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 26.09.2018 proposing recovery of said amount customs duty of Rs. 4,90,883/- along with the applicable interest under section 28 AA. Confiscation of goods imported by the appellants under the said bill of entry dated 17.09.2013 was also proposed in terms of section 111 (d) and 111 (o) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraud and the order confirming the demand of impugned amount of customs duty. 6. Learned counsel further impressed upon that since the duty is wrongly been confirmed upon the appellant, the order confiscating the goods of impugned bill of entry is also liable to be set aside. The present is not the case of duty exemption the duty was to be paid by debiting the impugned scrip, confiscation under section 111 (o) of the Act is liable to be set aside. Also the goods, in question, since do not attract any import licence or Import Trade Control (ITC) provisions these were freely imporable without any prohibition at the relevant time, hence, the confiscation order under section 111 (d) is also liable to be set aside. 7. The scrip was definitely issued by DGFT against exports made by M/s Mapple Overseas from whom M/s Connect India purchased these scrip and appellant purchased the same from M/s Connect India. There was no discrepancy in the scrip it was only due to mentioning of a wrong registration number at the time of registration of said scrip, the customs duty appeared to have been debited from different scrip of. It is submitted that there is no evidence of any collusion, willful m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 dated 11.09.2009 with respect to Focus Product Scheme and Notification No. 93/2009 dated 11.09.2009 with respect to Focus Market Scheme, it was mandatory for the appellant to comply with all the conditions of those notifications. The foremost condition is that the respective scrip is to be produced before the proper officer of customs at the time of clearance but the appellant has failed to produce the scrip. Hence exemption given under such notification is rightly denied on the ground of non-compliance of the said notification. With respect to the plea of imposition of penalty it is submitted that the appellant is the beneficiary of the duty which has been paid through fraudulent/ forged scrip the appellant was fully aware of this fraud as debit note for scrip duty element were being raised in the name of the firm/company other than the name of the firm appearing in the Bill of Entry filed by them. The hard copy whereof was found available with the appellant themselves. Thus the appellants are proved to have made the false declaration on the bill of entry filed by them. The penalties under section 114A and 114AA as well as 112 (b) (ii) are rightly being imposed. For the same re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notifications exempt goods when imported into India against the duty credit scrip issued under the respective FPS/FMS scheme from the whole duty of customs invocable thereon under the 1st Schedule to Customs Act and also from the whole of additional duty leviable therein under section 3 of said Customs Tariff Act. The said exemption is, however, subject to four conditions as mentioned in the said notification. Condition No. 2 thereof requires that the scrip utilized for imports has to be produced before the proper officer of customs at the time of clearance for debiting of the duties leviable on the goods, but for this exemption. 12. The Board Circular of earlier periods i.e. 1968-1972/2003, 8/2009, and 50/2011 require the original licence covering the description and value of the goods to be presented in case of TRA registration. Similar instructions were given under Board Circular No. 14/2015 emphasizing expeditious verification of shipping bills while registering the scrip. Since admittedly the appellant has failed to comply with the said notification, the benefit of duty exemption even on the genuine scrip is not permissible to the appellant. Present is the case of forged an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty free scrips were issued required the physical copies of the licences to be verified before allowing clearances. The corresponding exemption notifications issued under the Customs Act also required such verification. Various circulars issued by the Board from time to time and the Standing Orders issued by the Commissionerate from time to time also required not only verification of the scrips but also the shipping bills and bills of export under which the goods have been exported against the licence/scrip. Resultantly, there was never any room for the importer to presume that the goods could be cleared without paying duty without possessing and presenting a valid scrip, not only did the appellant not have a scrip in its possession, but it was also not aware as to which scrip it was buying. All the appellant did was ask that its customs broker to clear its goods without paying duty. Thus, there is nothing in the entire documents to show good faith or genuine belief on the part of the appellant. 14. With these observations, I hold that there was a mandatory responsibility with the appellant due to the exemption notifications and the Foreign Trade Policy provision, as discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as the role of the officers in the matter is concerned, learned authorized representative. Investigation in this regard has been handed over to CBI. Even if the officers were involved, it does not, in any way, dilute the liability of the appellants in terms of duty, interest or penalties. 18. Regarding the submission of learned counsel that since it is a bonafide importer, no penalty should be imposed on it, I find that the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Munjal Showa Ltd. has dealt with this issue and in paragraph 11 of the judgment held that the question as to whether the buyers had the knowledge about the fraud or forged licences and whether buyers were required to take precautions to find out about the genuineness of the licences which they have purchased would be bearing on the penalty. For that purpose, the Supreme Court had remanded that matter to the adjudicating authority. 19. I proceed to examine the question of penalty imposed upon the appellant based on these two parameters: (a) Knowledge of the fraud or forgery; (b) Precautions taken while buying the scrap and the responsibility for taking precaution. 20. I do not find any evidence of appellants‟ kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
