9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further has to be done - HELD THAT:- One thing is certain that petitioner has nowhere admitted its liability and petitioner had paid the amounts only in view of the tremendous pressure that was on petitioner to fulfill its export order and because an alert was put against IEC in system. It is also clear that no investigation has been conducted and SIIB(X), JNCH has only adopted a shortcut approach without investigating to trace the full truth. This method is unacceptable and has to be deprecated. Respondent no. 3 has also accepted that in view of incomplete investigation and lack of proper evidence it is not justified to confirm charges against petitioner. Jurisdiction is exercised and the impugned order dated 17th August 2021 passed by res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elopment and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rules made thereunder and under Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, a person, upon export of goods and upon realisation of the foreign exchange, as incentive for exports, is entitled to receive duty credit scrips. These scrips can be utilized to discharge customs duty payable on imports. These scrips are commonly referred to as FPS license and are freely transferable. There are no restrictions. 5. Against the exports made by petitioner during the year 2014, DGFT issued to petitioner FPS license dated 24th September 2014 for a value of Rs.20,65,447/-. As the FPS license was freely transferable, petitioner sold the FPS license to one M/s. Ashish Enterprises, Mumbai. M/s. Ashish Enterprises, Mumbai reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n September 2017 or thereabout that an alert was placed on its IEC which resulted in its export shipments being held up at various ports, petitioner approached the office of the Revenue. Petitioner says it was orally told to pay the customs duty alongwith interest and mandatory penalty of 15%. It is petitioner s case that finding no other alternative, as its shipments were held up, petitioner wrote a letter dated 14th September 2017 after paying a total amount of Rs. 29,73,352/- on 13th September 2017. Of this Rs. 20,65,153/- was towards customs duty and interest was Rs.9,08,194/-. It is respondents case that petitioner, by its letter dated 14th September 2017, had admitted to pay the amount of Rs. 29,73,352/- and also waived any show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts mentioned. Thereafter, has only reproduced Section 28(4), 28(5) and 28(6) of the Act and straightaway passed the order without any discussion. The Adjudicating Authority directed the duty amount and the interest amount paid to be appropriated in accordance with Section 28AAA(1) and Section 28AAA(2) of the Act respectively, and the penalty amount in accordance with Section 28(6) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority does not discuss anywhere how Section 28AAA of the Act is applicable to petitioner and how the amounts could be appropriated under Section 28(6) of the Act when petitioner s stand consistently has been that it was paid under protest. From the provisions of Section 28AAA of the Act, in our view, it appears that the same will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 17th August 2021 is scanned and reproduced hereinbelow : 11. In paragraph 12, respondent no. 3 has observed that no further investigation has been conducted and only the findings of investigation report dated 9th May 2018 have been relied upon and he has given a finding that the license, which was re-registered at JNCH, was a forged one. Respondent no. 3 has also noted that the process of registration, as reflected in the public notice dated 5th February 2013, issued by the office of the Commissioner of Custom (Export) has inbuilt mechanism for prevention of such fraud. Respondent no. 3 has reproduced paragraph 2 of the public notice, as amended. Respondent no. 3 has accepted that in the present case, the scrip in original is still wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to confirm charges against petitioner. Respondent no. 3 has stated that he is not authorised to cause any further investigation and no conclusive decision can be taken for or against the party and he is constrained to not alter the original order dated 14th December 2018. We find this conclusion rather strange and it is this conclusion with which petitioner is upset. 13. Mr. Tomar submitted that after holding petitioner cannot be held liable, respondent no. 3, instead of referring the matter to the concerned superior officers for further investigation, has passed the impugned order. Mr. Mishra submitted that petitioner can adopt an alternate remedy by filing an appeal. 14. We do not wish to add to the misery of petitioner. We say this bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
