Exporters face penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA for over-invoicing goods to claim undue export incentives

CESTAT New Delhi upheld penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 against exporters for over-invoicing goods to claim undue export incentives. The Tribunal held that any person rendering exported goods liable to confiscation faces penalty under Section 114, while those signing false documents incur liability under Section 114AA. Following Supreme Court precedent in OM PRAKASH BHATIA case, over-invoiced exports violating prescribed conditions constitute prohibited goods, attracting penalties. The Tribunal rejected delay in adjudication arguments, noting multiple noticees justified the time taken, and dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Comparison with co-noticee's case (Mr. Alip Kumar Das).
4. Appellant's role and involvement.
5. Delay in adjudication.
6. Validity of the impugned order.

Summary:

1. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant was penalized Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for attempting to export goods improperly by submitting forged invoices of overvalued goods to claim undue export incentives. The Tribunal found the appellant, a partner in M/s. Aan Impex General Trading LLC, Dubai, complicit in the fraudulent activities, as he received 30% of the profits and was aware of the overvaluation of export goods.

2. Imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant was also penalized Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for knowingly making, signing, or using false or incorrect material in the transaction of business under the Act. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, citing the appellant's admission of signing false documents and his active involvement in the fraudulent export scheme.

3. Comparison with co-noticee's case (Mr. Alip Kumar Das):
The appellant argued that his case was on a better footing compared to Mr. Alip Kumar Das, whose penalty was reduced by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal distinguished the appellant's role as a partner receiving profits from the fraudulent activities, unlike Mr. Das, who was an employee following instructions without personal gain. Thus, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant's submission for reduced penalty.

4. Appellant's role and involvement:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant was a partner in the Dubai-based firm and was aware of the modus operandi involving overvalued invoices for export goods. The appellant's statements and evidence indicated his knowledge and participation in the fraudulent activities, justifying the penalties imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

5. Delay in adjudication:
The appellant contended that the delay of over six years in adjudicating the show cause notice rendered the order unsustainable. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, noting that the complexity and involvement of multiple noticees justified the delay in adjudication.

6. Validity of the impugned order:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding the invalidity of the order due to non-mention of specific sections in the show cause notice and delay in adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the role and charges against the appellant were clearly mentioned in the show cause notice, and the penalties were rightly imposed based on the appellant's admitted involvement in the fraudulent export activities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for his role in the fraudulent export scheme and use of false documents.

---