Tribunal rules appellant liable for customs duty due to fraudulent DEPBs

The tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay customs duty as the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPBs) were found to be obtained fraudulently and cancelled ab initio. The tribunal concluded that the department could demand duty under Section 28 without revising the assessment. The demand was not time-barred, and interest on duty was payable from a specified date. The penalty under Section 114A was set aside due to lack of specific allegations. The penalty imposed on an individual was vacated as there was no evidence of involvement in the fraud.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellant due to ab initio cancellation of DEPBs.
2. Legality of the demand for duty under Section 28 without challenging the assessment.
3. Limitation period for the demand of duty.
4. Liability for interest on duty under Section 28AB.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 114A.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. I: Liability due to Ab Initio Cancellation of DEPBs
The appellant, De-Nocil, utilized DEPBs for duty-free import of goods. These DEPBs were later found to be obtained fraudulently and were cancelled ab initio by the licensing authority. The appellant argued that as bona fide purchasers, they should not be affected by the cancellation. However, the tribunal held that the concept of fraud vitiating everything applied here, meaning the DEPBs were invalid from the start. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have ensured the validity of the DEPBs before using them. The tribunal cited several cases, including Golden Tools International, where it was held that the licensing authority had the power to cancel DEPBs retrospectively. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the appellant was liable to pay customs duty as the DEPBs were invalid.

Issue No. II: Legality of Demand for Duty under Section 28
The appellant contended that the department could not demand duty without revising the assessment under Section 129 D (2). The tribunal rejected this, citing UOI vs. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Venus Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai, which held that a show-cause notice under Section 28 could be issued subsequent to the clearance of goods. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the department was within its rights to demand duty without revising the assessment.

Issue No. III: Limitation Period for the Demand of Duty
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice dated 5.10.2001 was issued beyond the normal period of limitation. The tribunal noted that the earlier 19 show-cause notices were issued within the normal period and the subsequent notice was a continuation of these. Citing B.P.L. India Ltd vs. Commissioner, the tribunal held that the demand was not time-barred as the show-cause notice dated 5.10.2001 was issued in continuation of the earlier notices.

Issue No. IV: Liability for Interest on Duty under Section 28AB
The tribunal noted that Section 28AB, as amended on 11.5.2001, applied to the case. Although the original show-cause notices did not allege collusion or suppression, the amended section did not require such allegations. Thus, the appellant was liable to pay interest from 11.5.2001 to the date of payment of duty.

Issue No. V: Imposition of Penalty under Section 114A
The tribunal observed that the show-cause notices did not allege collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts against the appellant, which are prerequisites for imposing a penalty under Section 114A. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

Additional Judgment:
Appeal No. C/85/2003 by Shri P. K. Srinivas
The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on P. K. Srinivas under Section 112(a) was contested. The tribunal found no specific allegation of involvement in the fraud against Srinivas and noted that no penalty was imposed on De-Nocil under Section 112. Therefore, the penalty on Srinivas was vacated.

Final Orders:
1. The demand of duty against De-Nocil is upheld.
2. Interest on duty under Section 28AB is payable from 11.5.2001 to the date of payment.
3. The penalty under Section 114A is set aside.
4. The order holding the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) is upheld, but no penalty under Section 112 is imposed on De-Nocil.
5. The penalty on P. K. Srinivas is set aside, and his appeal is allowed.

---