9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient Exports, obtained various advance licences and imported High Density Polyethylene/Polypropylene duty free under the said licences which were subsequently disposed of by him in contravention of the Import/Export Policy and Customs Notifications. On receipt of a specific information by the DRI, a search was conducted at his residential and factory premises. No imported plastic goods were found stored or having been brought to the factory at any time. During investigation it revealed that he had obtained seven advance licences from Jt. DGFT, New Delhi, for import of plastic material with the help of Shri Mahesh Ganatra - a licence broker, fraudulently and by mis-representing the facts. He sold four licences through Shri Mahesh Ganatra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide which duty demand of Rs. 60,62,638/- was demanded and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on him. The imported goods were also proposed to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The present appellant and Shri Mahesh Ganatra were also served with a show cause notice as they rendered themselves liable for penal action under Sections 112(a), (b) and 114A of the Customs Act for fraudulently obtaining advance licence with active connivance of each other and also facilitating the duty free clearance of the goods. 3. The present appellant only filed the reply to the show cause notice wherein he denied the allegations and maintained that he effected high seas sale of the imported goods to Shri Shashi Bhushan, Prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whom he sold the goods, for playing fraud on the Customs authorities. There was also no evidence to establish that the appellant ever helped Shri Shashi Bhushan in obtaining the advance licences fraudulently from the Office of the Jt. DGFT, New Delhi. The learned counsel has also contended that when the duty demand has been demanded in the show cause notice and even confirmed by the Commissioner through the impugned order, on Shri Shashi Bhushan, that itselt is enough to prove that the Customs authorities accepted Shri Shashi Bhushan as the importer of the goods after the high seas sale to him by the appellant and that there was also no evidence on the record to prove the sale of any advance licence by Shri Shashi Bhushan to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h him the goods were got cleared. Shri Shashi Bhushan, Proprietor of M/s. Efficient Exports, in his statements recorded on three occasions, is said to had stated that he was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting leather and woven garments mainly to USA and UK; his factory was located at Noida; he had facilities of manufacturing only leather garments and that he obtained seven licences from Jt. DGFT, New Delhi, for import of plastic materials with the help of Shri Mahesh Ganatra - a licence broker. He, however, also stated that he sold licence to M/s. Kosmo Plastic Exports Pvt. Ltd. of which the present appellant was one of the Directors at that time, besides to two other companies, namely, M/s. Varsha Polyproducts Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of clearance of the goods. The Customs authorities accepted him the importer after the high seas sale contact entered into between him and the appellants and allowed him the clearance of the goods duty free under the advance licence. Even in the show cause notice the duty had been demanded from him and not from the appellant. 11. In the impugned order also the learned Commissioner has affirmed the duty on Shri Shashi Bhushan along with the penalty and not on the appellant. It is also evident from the impugned order itself that Shri Shashi Bhushan deposited Rs. 46 lakhs towards the duty with the DRI. If there had been no genuine high seas sale of the goods by the appellant to Shri Shashi Bhushan, there was no occasion for the Customs au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner could not travel beyond the show cause notice and record contrary findings. 12. There is also no material on the record to suggest the sale of the advance licence by Shri Shashi Bhushan to the appellant. The one line statement of Shri Shashi Bhushan in this regard, could not be attached any credence, especially when he had failed to corroborate the same by producing any document and had been found to a person who played fraud with the Office of the Jt. DGFT, New Delhi, for having obtained the licences by mis-representation and suppression of the facts through a licence broker. The appellant had categorically denied in his statement the purchase of any licence from Shri Shashi Bhushan. He disposed of the goods on behalf of Shri Shas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
