9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but there is nothing on record to prove it. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to the statement of KVS Ram Mohan, Manager of the Bank recorded on 30.04.2002. As per his statement M/s. Universal Traders failed to realize export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 4,09,90,925/- while in the case of M/s. Zen Series, it was Rs. 3,15,50,668/-. He was asked to confirm physical exports against all the GR to which it was replied that he cannot confirm the same being not the relevant person. The fact remains that the Customs Department has endorsed for issuance of 10 GR each for both the firms and there is nothing on record to prove withdrawal of export from bounded area. Appellant has failed to prove the case in his favour. It is also a fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellant did not make exports against all the GR issued in the name of the firm yet notice was issued making him responsible for alleged violation of Section 18(2) of the Act, 1973 for non-realization of the export proceeds. The penalty of Rs. 70 Lakh has been imposed for the aforesaid. 4. Since Appellant did not make export against all the GR issued in the name of two firms there was no question to make recovery against those GR when export had not taken place. A reference of the statement of the bank accounts was given to indicate that even it did not verify export against all the GR. The confusion has been created by one Shri Subhash Dubey of M/s. Sterling International for non-realization of the proceeds of the exports. The Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of FERA. The extensive argument was made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the factual issue raised by the Appellant in regard to the export only against 06 GR by M/s. Universal Traders and 05 GR by Zen Series though in both cases 10 GR were issued by the Custom Department. We will discuss the arguments raised by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent while dealing with the arguments of the Appellant to avoid repetition of the same fact and accordingly we have gone through the record. 8. It is not in dispute that 10 GR each were issued by the Customs Departments in favour of M/s. Universal Traders and M/s. Zen Series for export of garments. The facts aforesaid has been admitted by the Appellant though against 10 GR, the physical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department and from the bonded area. The opportunity for it was given on 08.04.2024 but the Appellant failed to produce any record to prove the aforesaid. 10. At this stage it is necessary to clarify that GRs are issued by the Customs Department when export has to commence and thereby the export material is brought in the bonded area. It results in exports other than in the case of withdrawal of the export so is GR but there is nothing on record to prove it. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to the statement of KVS Ram Mohan, Manager of the Bank recorded on 30.04.2002. As per his statement M/s. Universal Traders failed to realize export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 4,09,90,925/- while in the case of M/s. Zen Series, it was Rs. 3,15,50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
