9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g initiated the investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has examined the case and concluded enquiries from the point of view of violations under FEMA, 1999, if any. While the focus of investigation under the Customs Act, 1962 was under-invoicing of imports to evade Customs duty, the focus of investigation under FEMA, 1999 was payment of the differential amount between the invoiced value and actual value through illegal channels. The two are different, though related contraventions under the respective Acts. The respondent Directorate independently recorded the statements of the appellant under FEMA, 1999 in which he confirmed his earlier statements before the DRI and explained in detail not only the modus operandi adopted by him for under-invoicing, but also payment of the price differential in cash to the representatives of the overseas suppliers. Other verifications were also carried out, including letters sent to and reply received from the Citibank, Surat confirming the remittances made against imports made by the Shree Laxmi Trading Company, though, admittedly, the investigations in this case primarily relied on the statements of the appellant. No bar on the empower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the adjudication order. Keeping in view the time horizon over which the statements were recorded the consistency in the admissions made before the two authorities, allegation of threat and duress are clearly an afterthought on the part of the appellant to escape liability under FEMA, 1999. Show Cause Notice (SCN) was vague - There was no proposal in the SCN to impose penalty on the appellant under any section of FEMA, 1999 - SCN, the attached Complaint and the documents annexed thereto as Annexure-A , when read together as one, convey very specific allegations against the appellant as well as the material being relied upon in support of the said allegations. Nothing vague about the same as alleged by the appellant. Accordingly, reject these contentions of the appellants. SCN was issued by the Special Director of Enforcement whereas the case was actually adjudicated upon by the Additional Director who is junior in the hierarchy to the Special Director - SCN in this case was issued on 28.12.2011 and the impugned order in pursuance thereof was passed on 30.01.2013. Thus, it is evident that there was a considerable time gap between the date of issue of the notice and the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was made in the present case by the appellant in his statements that value declared for import $ 5 to $ 8 per kg per metallic prevailing rate of $ 30 -37 per kg for metallic yarn $ 23-25 per kg for metallic film. The above statement was confirmed in subsequent statements before the DRI as well as ED, although, it is now denied by the appellant. The veracity of the statement has already been discussed in para 56-58 above. On the basis of the above differential in the declared rate and the actual rate, it was held that the appellants had actually imported goods of value Rs. 6,01,82,311/- as against the declared value of Rs. 1,71,62,087/- against 26 Bill of Entry. He further admitted in his statement that he had paid the differential which works out to Rs. 4, 30,20,224/- to the representatives of the suppliers in India in cash in Indian Rupees while imposing penalty, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has held the said amount to be the sum involved . Having considered the above facts carefully, I do not find any discrepancies in the same. Nor has the appellant provided any alternate working of the sum involved backed by necessary evidence. DRI received certain invoices showing the curr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were 30 to 35 years old and refused to give their names, addresses or telephone numbers. He stated that they would get him to talk to Mr. Shimezu on their phone and confirm the payment. He further stated that he made payment of differential amount to M/s. Sanwa similarly but did not remember the name of the person of Sanwa or the persons who used to come to collect such payment (statement of 27.11.07). 4. Shri Jariwala further stated that the value declared by them for imports were $ 5 to $7 per kg. for mettalic yarn and $ 2.5 to 2.6 per kg. for metallised polyster films, whereas the prices for polyster mettalic yarn were $ 30 to $37 per kg. and for Metallic film $ 23 to $25 per kg. He further stated that he obtained invoices at lower value to send remittances to overseas supplier in foreign currency through banking channel (statement dtd. 29.2.08). 5. Statements of Shri Jariwala were also recorded by the Directorate under Sec.37 of FEMA. 1973. In his statement dtd. 4.4.11, he stated that they import the goods against advance payment of 30% to overseas buyers through Citi Bank, Surat and balance payments were made when the goods were loaded at the port. He further stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co.-Surat (the importer), is an HUF wherein Shri Devendra Mulchand das Jariwala is its Karta/Proprietor. The importer is a manufacturer of KASAB/ZARI and they import among other goods, polyester metallic yarn/film falling under Chapter 56 and 39 of the Customs Tariff as their raw material. The importers are holding a valid IEC code issued by DGFT. They imported approximately 25-26 consignments during the period 2005, 2006 and 2007 and for clearance of goods from customs, filed the Bills of Entry. The description, value and quantity were declared in the Bills of Entry as per the supplier's invoices. The Customs authorities at the time of import clearance did not accept the declared value and the same was rejected and, thereafter, enhanced; clearance was allowed by charging duty on enhanced value; the assessment was final, however, no speaking order was issued. The Customs authorities did not challenge the assessment, hence the order of assessment under section 17 and order of clearance under section 47 of the Customs Act attained finality. The DRI initiated investigation in the said imports and issued a show cause notice dated 13-03-2008. 8. Thereafter, the Special Director of E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /SRU/INV-II/2007 dated 13-03-2008 issued under section 124 of the Customs Act 1962. By now, the law is well settled that the officers of DRI are not competent to issued show cause notice under the Customs Act 1962. Therefore, the show cause notice issued by DRI is without authority of law. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Sayed Ali 2011 (265) E.LT. 17 (S.C.), is cited wherein it was held that the Additional Director General DRI was not a proper officer under Customs Act 1962. Para 23 of the above judgment has been relied upon which reads as below: 23. We, therefore, hold that the entire proceeding in the present case initiated by the Additional Director General of the DRI by issuing show cause notices in all the matters before us are invalid without any authority of law and liable to be set aside and the ensuing demands are also set aside . 12. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Versus Union of India reported vide-2016 (335) ELT- 605(Del), is also cited wherein it has been held as below: 70.1 The net result of the above discussion is that the Department cannot seek to rely upon Section 28(11) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable in the eye of law. 16. The next contention of the appellant is that the statement which is the focal point of the allegations and contentions against the appellant does not represent true facts. The statements recorded either by DRI or by ED are not voluntary and have been recorded under duress, intimidation with the threat that other members of HUF would also be implicated, consequently. He was coerced to make statement against his free will, operating under the fear of potential jeopardy to other members, since the appellant was intimidated by the DRI ED that his fellow coparceners would be implicated, he agreed to record statement as per the dictates, It cannot be said that the statements were voluntary but it has all the ingredients of an involuntary statement. It is pointed out that the first four statements before ED are exculpatory but there is U turn in the last one. This clearly demonstrates intimidation. Once the person is psychologically intimidated and pressurized, he cannot dare to retract because he is apprehensive that those officers will harass him. So, to avoid future torture, he did not retract. 17. It is further contended that admissibility and evidentiary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962 in general and section 108 in particular are not made applicable to Foreign Exchange Management Act-1999 (FEMA); the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not relevant for the proceedings under FEMA; 21. The decision in M/s Thakkar Shipping Agency Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in ELT-1994 (69) ELT-90 (Tribunal), Varma Sons [2009(235) ELT-344 (Tri-Mumbai), Smita International-2008 (225) ELT-439 (Tri-Mumbai) are cited in support of the contention. Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble CEGAT, Special Bench New Delhi in the case of ORIENT ENTERPRISES, NEW DELHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN, 1986 (23) E.LT. 507 (Tribunal) approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment reported vide 1997 (92)ELT-A69(SC) is referred to wherein, while considering the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, whether it is a confessional statement comparable to the statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. had held as under, The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question had held that the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 1962 is not comparable to confession recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C before Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared the description of the goods; that the goods were under- valued compared the contemporaneous import of same or similar goods at or about same time period; cash was handed over to the authorized representative: the seized goods were actually imported by the appellant. It is contended that the impugned SCN as well as impugned order just reproduced the statements of the Appellant. 26. It is next contended that the Show Cause Notice in the present case was vague and the whole proceedings are vitiated for lack of proper show cause notice. The allegation in para 2 of the impugned SCN reads as follows: there appears to be a contravention of the provision of section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (in short- FEMA) to the tune of Rs 4,30,20,224/-in the said complaint . 27. Except making bald allegation, impugned show cause notice does not allege or impute any particular, definite or specific conduct against the appellant. No sustainable justification has been given in the impugned show cause notice, with specific evidences and reasons to suggest that there is violation of section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999 by the appellant. 28. Further, there is no proposal in the impugned s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stand of the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed by the CEGAT cannot be faulted. 32. The judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Delta International Limited v. CC [2012 (281) ELT. 400 (Cal.)), is also cited wherein it was held as :- 16. In our opinion, whether they have the power to do so or not is very secondary. No case has prima facie been made out against the appellant/writ petitioner which he can be required to answer. Under well settled principles if a show cause notice does not disclose any contravention or infraction of any provision of law the person or such show cause notice is a nullity. But, here, it is not such a case. The grounds made in the show cause notice allege that customs duty of Rs. 7,08,98,160/- is due but the reasons in support of such claim in the show cause notice are very ambiguous so much so it is impossible to understand anything else by reasonably any prudent person. Therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner, in our opinion, is not in a position to answer such show cause notice, which is against the rules of natural justice. 33. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange New Delhi, in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry should be held, he shall issue a notice fixing a date for the appearance of that person either personally or through his legal practitioner or a chartered accountant duly authorised by him. (4) On the date fixed, the Adjudicating Authority shall explain to the person proceeded against or his legal practitioner or the chartered accountant, as the case may be, the contravention, alleged to have been committed by such person indicating the provisions of the Act or of Rules, regulations, notifications, direction or orders or any condition subject to which an authorisation is issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of which contravention is alleged to have taken place. (5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, then, given an opportunity to such person to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary, the hearing may be adjourned to future date and in taking such evidence the Adjudicating Authority shall not be bound to observe the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) (6) The Adjudicating Authority shall, then, given an opportunity to such person to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for the purpose of deciding whether an enquiry should be held or not. On issue of show cause notice, the noticee is permitted to submit his reply to the same. Rule 4(3) of the Adjudication Rules contemplates a two-stage inquiry process, At the first stage, the Adjudicating Authority needs to form an opinion, after considering the cause shown by the noticee, if any, as to whether there is a prime facie case against the noticee to be proceeded against in an inquiry, The opinion required to show application of mind to the objections raised by the noticee and give reasons thereto, such opinion necessarily be recorded in writing. If after considering the cause shown, the adjudicating authority is of the opinion that an enquiry should be held, thereupon under Rule 4(3), a notice is issued for the alleged contravention to have been committed and under sub-Rule (5) an opportunity of producing documents or evidence has to be given. Under sub- Rule (8), the adjudicating authority is empowered to impose a penalty if it is satisfied, upon considering the evidence produced that there has been a contravention. 37. It is contended that Rule 4 of the adjudicating Rules is a comprehensive self ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquiry should be held against him or not. Every such notice is required to indicate the nature of contravention alleged to have been committed by the person concerned. That after taking the cause, if any, shown by such person, the adjudicating authority is required to form an opinion as to whether an inquiry is required to be held into the allegations of contravention. It is only then the real and substantial inquiry into allegations of contravention begins 38. It is contended that the above observations clearly indicate that issuance of show cause notice under Rule 4(1) is not for the purpose of making an adjudication into the alleged contravention but only for deciding whether an enquiry to be conducted or not. The stage when an enquiry is held is subsequent to the initial stage contemplated by Rule 4(1). In Para 23 of the judgment, it was further observed: 23. The right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right. Every person before an authority exercising the adjudicatory powers has a right to know the evidence to be used against him. This principle is firmly established and recognised by this Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [AIR 1955 SC 65: (1955) 1 SCR 941]. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the initial stage under Rule 4(1) which is only for the purpose of deciding whether an enquiry has to be held and the subsequent stage of adjudication into the allegations of contravention. The Hon'ble Court further held: 25 As noticed, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided by the adjudicating authority in the manner prescribed for the purpose of imposing any penalty as provided for in the Act and not at the stage where the adjudicating authority is required merely to decide as to whether an inquiry at all be held into the matter. Imposing of penalty after the adjudication is fraught with grave and serious consequences and therefore, the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposition of any such penalty is to be met. In contradistinction, the opinion formed by the adjudicating authority whether an inquiry should be held into the allegations made in the complaint are not fraught with such grave consequences and therefore the minimum requirement of a show-cause notice and consideration of cause shown would meet the ends of justice. A proper hearing always include, no doubt, a fair opportunity to those who are parties in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the noticee, be it preliminary as well as any other defence, by passing one common order of adjudication. The fact that the legislature has provided in Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules thus con Issue of notice, the noticee can object to the same and this objection has to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority for forming an opinion to proceed further with the show cause notice would require giving some meaning to it, otherwise it would be rendered otiose. 41. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in this case, formation of opinion by the Ld. Respondent is not forthcoming in the impugned order, hence, there is an infraction of sub-Rule (1) (3) of Rule 4 of the FEMA Adjudication Rule-2000, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings against the Appellant. 42. It is next contended that the respondent has imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 13 of FEMA, though it is not so specified in the order. There was no proposal in the impugned show cause notice to impose penalty on the Appellant under any Section or sub-section of FEMA. Therefore, Respondent traversed beyond the show cause notice. Levy of penalty without proposal in the show cause notice is unsustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovered as penalty, no order could be passed and any order passed by the adjudicating authority beyond the scope of the show cause notice is wholly without jurisdiction. 44. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Of M/s Refnol Resins And Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India-2013 (287) E.LT. 61 (Guj.) is also relied upon. 45. It is also submitted that Section 13 of FEMA contains more than one sub-section, the impugned order is conspicuously silent about the sub-section of Section 13 of FEMA. 46. It is next contended that in the present case, the import took place during the period 21-09-2005 to 20- 09-2007; Bill of Entry wise details have been provided by the appellant. It is contended that DRI Show Cause Notice has intentionally withheld the fact that the goods imported against the above referred Bills of Entry were assessed after rejecting the declared transaction value and, for charging duty, the value was re-determined by enhancing the value by the DRI. It is alleged that the DRI withheld this VITAL information from the adjudicating authority. At the time of clearance of the goods from Customs, the customs authorities rejected the declared value and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h object of facilitating external trade and payments and for promoting the orderly development and maintenance of foreign exchange market in India. Thus, approach of FEMA, 1999 is different from the Customs Act, Value referred to under Section 14 of the Customs Act and determination thereof as per valuation Rules-88 is of no relevance under FEMA. 49. It is next contended that the DRI show cause notice is based on unsustainable and unreliable evidence such the price for insurance shown in the insurance policy Bill of lading, some FAX. quotation, some document found in the office of other importers for their imports there is no evidence as to whether, any import was made against such document. DRI show cause notice in itself a document of allegations, the allegations of one show cause notice cannot be proved and or sustained on the basis of another show cause notice issued under a separate law/Act and for different purpose; therefore to consider the amount Rs 4,30,20,224/-as as sum involved as per DRI show cause notice is mistaken assumption, therefore, illegal and erroneous. 50. As an alternate argument, it is next contended that assuming but without conceding that the cash payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid admissions made by him in the statements before the DRI were never retracted by him. Moreover, the differential duty amount assessed under the Customs Act, 1962 was duly paid by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent Directorate in the present case has only adopted the value assessed in the order passed under the Customs Act, 1962. Strong reliance is placed by the appellants upon the factual admissions made by the appellant in his statements before the DRI, which were subsequently reconfirmed by him in the statements made before the respondent Directorate during the course of proceedings under the FEMA, 1999. Analysis Findings 53. I have given careful consideration to the facts on record and to the rival contentions of the parties. The first set of contentions raised on behalf of the appellant question the reliance placed by the respondent Directorate on the proceedings conducted by the DRI under the Customs Act, 1999. It is contended that the intent and purpose of the two enactments are vastly different from each other and the findings of investigation under the first Act cannot be applied to the other. It is also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed submissions have been made in this regard seeking to rely upon various case laws. It is contended that the SCN issued by the DRI was non-est. Having given careful consideration to these contentions of the appellant, I find that the same are of very little relevance in the present proceedings before this Appellate Tribunal. Needless to say, the order under challenge in this appeal is an order arising from proceedings which were initiated and concluded under the FEMA, 1999 and not under the Customs Act 1962. Even if there is any substance in the contention that the DRI was not competent to conduct the said investigation under the Custom Act, 1962, so long as the investigations made out a case of violation of FEMA, 1999, the ED would be well within its rights to initiate appropriate enquiries under FEMA, 1999 take the matter to its logical end. As already pointed out, no doubt the action of the ED under FEMA, 1999 was triggered by the information received from the DRI in respect of proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. However, proceedings under FEMA 1999 were independent proceedings initiated and concluded under the said Act which did not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appellant in that case was that he had been detained for two days and two nights which was not refuted by the respondents. He retracted his statement as soon as he was finally produced before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay on 28.10.1994. He also filed and application retracting his confession wherein he stated that from 26th evening till that date when he was produced before the Ld. CMM, he was illegally detained in the office of the ED, during which all statements had been recorded by force, coercion and also the threat of being detained under COFEPOSAA, 1974. As against this, in the present case, the statements under the Customs Act, 1962 were admittedly recorded between September 2007 to February, 2008. The statements under the FEMA, 1999 were recorded during the period between 09.03.2011 and 08.12.2011. The statements recorded by the ED were, therefore, recorded nearly four years after the statements recorded the under the Customs Act. The first time that force and coercion in recording the statement was alleged by the appellant was in the written defence submitted by the appellant before the adjudicating authority at the time of hearing on 27.12.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is proposed to be imposed; that penalty cannot be imposed without reasonable opportunity of being heard; that fine could not be recovered where SCN had no proposal for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation and that penalty imposed without issuing any notice to the petitioners suffers from the vice of breach of principles of natural justice. The decisions in Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 2021 (377) ELT 33 (Bom.), Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd. 346 ELT 45 (Guj.), Shivam Development Trust (340) ELT 45 (Guj), Krishna Trading Company 2016 (336) ELT 449 (Guj), Swarnagiri Wire Insulations 2014 (301) ELT 46 (Kar), Refnol Resins and Chemicals 2013 (287) ELT 61 (Guj.) have been cited. 60. The above contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant have been considered. In this context, I have perused the SCN issued by the respondent Directorate in this case. I find that the opening paragraph of the said SCN reads as below: WHEREAS a complaint under sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 has been filed before me for contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (as specified in the enclosed complaint); 61. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way. I have perused the said judgment of the ATFE and find that the decision of Appellate Tribunal turned on the specific facts of the said case wherein the adjudicating authority had categorically recorded that the charge in the SCN was not for under-invoicing of imports but rather for unauthorized entering into financial transaction in India as a consideration for or any association with the acquisition or creation or transfer of a right to acquire, any asset outside India by any person. The ATFE observed that the findings of the adjudicating authority do not appear to be correct from the perusal of the SCN in which no provisions of the alleged transactions under FEMA have been mentioned. Furthermore, in the enclosed complaint of the Assistant Director, the complainant had stated that it appears that during the relevant period, the said companies, Mittal Ispat Ltd. and Sharda Casting Ltd., had contravened the provisions of Section 3(s) of FEMA, 1999 in having made payments totaling to Rs. 1,52,62,388/- as per instructions from abroad in consideration of foreign exchange so acquired by the appellant companies towards differential amount of under-invoicing of imports made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the officer who has finally passed the order never granted any opportunity of being heard but merely relied on the material already brought on record by his predecessor while passing the impugned order. As such, I do not find any merit in this contention of the appellant. 65. The next contention of the appellant is that under the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, for the purpose of adjudicating under section 13, the adjudicating authority is required to issue a notice requiring such person to show cause within the specified period why and enquiry should not be held against him. It is contended that in the present case there was a violation of Sub-rule (1) and (3) of Rule 4 of the said rules which vitiated the entire proceedings. It is stated that under the said rules, at the first stage the adjudicating authority has to issue the notice to show cause why an enquiry should not be held. This stage is not for adjudication as such but only for deciding whether and enquiry should be held or not. The noticee is permitted to submit his reply on the same. Accordingly, the adjudication rules contemplate a two-stage process. At the first stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry into allegations of contravention begins. While holding inquiry into allegations of contravention, every Adjudicating Authority shall have the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the matters, namely, (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record, document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents etc. That all proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code; shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 66. It is contended that in the instant case, it is not forthcoming in the impugned order that there was any formation of opinion by the authority prior to conducting the enquiry. 67. In the context of the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants, I have perused the impugned order. I find that in the said order, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case by the appellant in his statements that value declared for import $ 5 to $ 8 per kg per metallic prevailing rate of $ 30 -37 per kg for metallic yarn $ 23-25 per kg for metallic film. The above statement was confirmed in subsequent statements before the DRI as well as ED, although, it is now denied by the appellant. The veracity of the statement has already been discussed in para 56-58 above. On the basis of the above differential in the declared rate and the actual rate, it was held that the appellants had actually imported goods of value Rs. 6,01,82,311/- as against the declared value of Rs. 1,71,62,087/- against 26 Bill of Entry. He further admitted in his statement that he had paid the differential which works out to Rs. 4, 30,20,224/- to the representatives of the suppliers in India in cash in Indian Rupees while imposing penalty, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has held the said amount to be the sum involved . Having considered the above facts carefully, I do not find any discrepancies in the same. Nor has the appellant provided any alternate working of the sum involved backed by necessary evidence. Further, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in paragraph 39 of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
