9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Customs, Jawahar Custom House, Sheva, a show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kandla which was then by corrigendum dated 30.09.2002 was made answerable to Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Kandla. Upon perusal of the said letter dated 25.08.2001 of the Commissioner of Customs, Sheva it is noticed that the same doubts the authenticity of the licenses shown in the register of the custom house. It states that the investigation with reference to the above mentioned DEPBs and TRAs have been taken up by Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai and Bombay Custom House and in the meanwhile to safeguard revenue interest immediate action to identify clearance and to demand duty may be taken. It follows from the record that absolute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Shri Tara Praksha Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR These appeals are filed against the Order of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla by which duty demand has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed on the following parties M/s. Prakash Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s. Raksha Impex and M/s. Bharat Impex ( appellants hereinafter). The appellants are importers of goods availing exemption under Notification No. 34/97 dated 7.4.1997 as amended against DEPB licenses. Since the issue involved is identical in all these three appeals, appeal of M/s. Prakash Impex Pvt Ltd is being taken up for ease as lead matter. 1.1 The facts in brief are that officers of CIU, Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E) Mumbai initiated inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the license/RAs relating to M/s. Abhiman Exports and M/s. Bhanu Sales Pvt. Ltd. as and when they received fax message from Shrikant Jhawar and as per his direction the DDs were got prepared and were sent directly to Delhi; that these Licenses/Release Advices were purchased by them @108% premium that they paid the said amount by DD/cheque and provided the details of payment. He further stated that Release Advices were directly sent by Shrikant Jhawar to CHA, M/s. Prime Forwarders, Gandhidham for clearance of goods and that he did not know any person in M/s. Abhiman Exports and M/s. Bhanu Sales Pvt. Ltd. 1.3 On the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 25.8.2001 and the statement of the Director, a show cause notice dated 14.12.2001 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original adjudicating authority who shall supply the relied upon documents and thereafter proceed to adjudicate the matter. Needless to say appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before a final order is issued. Thereafter De-novo adjudication order was passed wherein learned Commissioner relied upon a letter dated 6.11.2012 of Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi by which it was informed that the License Numbers pertained to advance license and issued to the parties other than that mentioned parties in the DEPB license in question. He proceeded on the basis that the letter dated 25.08.2001 of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva has intimated that DEPB licenses were forged and further that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he licenses and issued Release Advices have not questioned the authenticity of the licenses. He further submitted that notice is barred by limitation. 3. Shri Tara Praksha, learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing for the department submitted that appellant has not filed police complaint against the original license holder shows that he was aware about the forged nature of licenses. He further reiterated the finding given in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in the present appeals is whether DEPB licenses based on which TRAs issued by Bombay Customs House, against which appellant imported goods at Kandla port availing duty exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice are not specific and on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity indicated in the show cause notice. 4.1 It is further noticed that records do not reveal about inquiries made or statements recorded of officers of customs at port where DEPB licenses were registered and who issued TRAs against the said DEPB licenses. It appears that there were no efforts made before issuance of show cause notice to verify the licenses with the DGFT or with the forensic expert to establish the alleged forged nature of the licenses or any other modus of its misuse. Thus, the inference that can be drawn is that officers at port have duly verified the validi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
