9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e re-examined by the Custom officers, and it was found that the description of the goods was not as per the declaration filed in the shipping bills. The shipping bills, the description of the goods were readymade garments whereas in fact the goods were old and used garments. The goods were seized and it was also found that the goods were overvalued to claim the higher rate of drawback. On investigation, it was also found that all the exporting from floated by Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Shri Rajesh Kumar Kashap @ Rajesh Bhasin. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the seized goods and for disallowing the drawback already sanctioned to the exporter and the demand for drawback was also made. In the show cause notice, the proposal for imposition of penalty were also made. Thereafter the adjudicating authority confiscated the garments valued at Rs. 31,39,72,656.77 value declared by the exporter under Section 113 of the Customs Act and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 66 lakhs. The adjudicating authority also ordered that no drawback shall be allowed in respect of these goods and the demand is confirmed in respect of drawback already obtained by the exporter. Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k. In spite of this knowledge he allowed the drawback claims to the exporting firms, therefore, he is liable for penalty. 6.We find that Shri J.P. Singh, was working as Assistant Commissioner (Drawback), he has no role in respect of the export of the goods. The goods were to be exported for which Shri S.N. Ojha was in-charge as Shri Ojha was working as Assistant Commissioner, Export. As per the procedure when the Let Export Order was passed by export wing and the goods were cleared for export as Assistant Commissioner (Drawback), has to be sanctioned the drawback claim after verifying the contents from the shipping bill. It is also come on record when the investigation started, Shri J.P. Singh directed the bank where the amounts of drawback was deposited not to release the amount to the exporter. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority held that there is no proof of monetary flow back of the export proceeds or drawback from Rajesh Kumar to Shri J.P. Singh. The adjudicating authority only held that Shri J.P. Singh liable on the ground that on the basis of circumstantial evidence connivance of Shri J.P. Singh is established to claim the higher rate of drawback by misdecl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken and be shown to the Assistant Commissioner (Export). The contention is that as per instructions, the samples were taken and were duly shown to the Assistant Commissioner who approved the same. It is also contended that the goods relating to these shipping bills were exported and got cleared at Dubai Port and the goods were never examined. In these circumstances, when the goods were not re-examined the allegation that Shri Zaki Anwar is party to the conspiracy to get higher drawback. Hence the penalty is not sustainable. 9.In respect of Shri Lovkesh Sharma, the contention is that he has examined the goods in respect of 8 shipping bills and in respect of remaining 15 shipping bills the goods were already got cleared at Dubai Port. The remaining goods were re-examined which was found that these were used and old garments whereas the declaration in respect of readymade garments, the goods were overvalued. The contention is that non-examination of the goods does not make him liable for imposition of penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, in absence of any monetary benefit gained by the appellant out of these transactions. He is only liable for departmental action. 10.The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner, Export. In spite of this the shipping bills were re-assigned to Shri Joseph Kuok who gave the Let Export Order on the direction of Shri S.N. Ojha. In these circumstances, as the goods were not examined by the Inspectors of Customs and Shri S.N. Ojha who was in-charge of the Export particularly when there was a direction that the sample which was without looking into the samples he marked the shipping bills to another Supdt. of Customs. We find that in the impugned order, penalties were rightly imposed on these three appellants Shri S.N. Ojha, Shri Zaki Anwar and Shri Lovkesh Kumar. The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. 12.Now, we take up the appeals filed by Shri Satish Gupta, CHA and Sh. Yashpal Gupta, CA, the contention of the appellant is that the CHA only filed shipping bills as per the direction of the exporter and there is no evidence on record to show that the goods were misdeclared or instead of readymade garments the old and used garments are being exported by the exporter. He simply filed shipping bills and there is also no evidence that there is any extra monetary benefit gained by filing these shipping bills, therefore, the penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
