TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the DEPB scrips and TRAs used for duty-free imports were fake, forged and fabricated, and whether the appellant was involved in the fraudulent circulation of those instruments; (ii) Whether the appellant was liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) Whether the proceedings were vitiated by limitation, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice.
Issue (i): Whether the DEPB scrips and TRAs used for duty-free imports were fake, forged and fabricated, and whether the appellant was involved in the fraudulent circulation of those instruments.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the TRAs were not issued by Mumbai Customs to Chennai Customs, but were produced through Customs House Agents in Chennai and used for duty-free clearance. The original DEPB holders had not transferred the scrips to the Chennai importers, and in some instances the scrips mentioned in the TRAs differed from the registered scrips. The evidence, including the statement of the co-operator and the surrounding record, established that the appellant had sold the instruments at a low price and was part of the fraudulent arrangement.
Conclusion: The TRAs and connected DEPB scrips were held to be fake and forged, and the appellant was found to have participated in the fraud against Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Once the goods were cleared on the basis of invalid and non-genuine instruments, the goods became liable to confiscation and the penal provision applied to a person who committed or abetted acts rendering the goods so liable. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not a mere stranger or broker, but a conscious participant in the scheme and had acted with a predetermined mind to defeat Revenue. The standard of proof in such proceedings was satisfied on the basis of preponderance of probability and corroborative evidence.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was rightly imposed on the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were vitiated by limitation, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that fraud nullifies the plea of time bar and that the extended period could be invoked where the transaction itself was founded on forged instruments. It further held that Customs authorities were competent to proceed where confiscable goods and customs violations were involved, and that the appellant had been given notice and an opportunity of hearing. The plea of absence of hearing, absence of incriminating seizure, and exclusive jurisdiction of DGFT was rejected.
Conclusion: The proceedings were not barred by limitation, were within customs jurisdiction, and were not vitiated by violation of natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits because the fraudulent nature of the instruments, the appellant's participation, and the validity of the customs proceedings were all established.
Ratio Decidendi: Where forged or non-genuine import facilitation instruments are knowingly circulated to secure duty-free clearance, Customs may invoke confiscation and penalty provisions, and fraud defeats objections based on limitation, jurisdiction, and technical fairness.
TaxTMI 
