Customs authorities deny benefits under Notification 99/2009 for misused advance authorization in garment exports

CESTAT New Delhi upheld customs authorities' decision to deny benefits under Notification No. 99/2009 to an appellant who misused advance authorization for garment exports. The tribunal found overwhelming evidence that imported fabrics were diverted to open market instead of being used for export production. Key evidence included statements from brokers and co-noticees revealing the modus operandi to defraud government. The appellant's request for extensive cross-examination was rejected as department had already allowed four witnesses to be cross-examined and appellant failed to cooperate during investigations. DGFT confirmed export obligations remained unfulfilled through show cause and demand notices. Confiscation of fabrics and penalties were upheld, with all four appeals dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit of Customs Notification No. 99/2009.
2. Confiscation of imported fabrics and imposition of penalties.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Diversion of imported goods into the open market.
5. Undervaluation of imports.
6. Role of co-noticees in the diversion of goods.

Summary:

1. Denial of Benefit of Customs Notification No. 99/2009:
The appellant, M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd., was denied the benefit of Customs Notification No. 99/2009 dated 11.09.2009, as the imported raw material was found to be diverted to the open market instead of being used in the manufacture of export products as required under the Advance Authorisation.

2. Confiscation of Imported Fabrics and Imposition of Penalties:
The imported goods were seized based on the reasonable belief of violation of condition no. 14 of the Advance Authorisation. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties and ordered the confiscation of the fabrics imported by the appellant.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not consider their defense and denied them the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal noted that the Department had allowed cross-examination of four witnesses and found the appellant's request for further cross-examination unjustified, considering it a tactic to delay the proceedings.

4. Diversion of Imported Goods into the Open Market:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority that the imported goods were diverted to the open market. The evidence included statements from various individuals and corroborative documents, indicating that the goods were not delivered to the factory premises as required by the Advance Authorization.

5. Undervaluation of Imports:
The Tribunal upheld the enhanced values of the imported goods, as the declarations filed by the supplier in Hong Kong indicated higher values than those declared by the appellant before Indian Customs. The Tribunal found no hesitation in upholding the enhanced values.

6. Role of Co-noticees in the Diversion of Goods:
The Tribunal considered the roles of co-noticees, including Shri Ajay Kumar Goyal and Shri Pawan Kumar Seth, in the diversion of goods. The evidence, including statements recorded under \u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, indicated their involvement in the sale of imported goods in the open market. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the imposition of penalties on the co-noticees.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals filed by the appellant, upholding the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the diversion of imported goods, denial of benefit under Customs Notification No. 99/2009, and the imposition of penalties. The judgment emphasized the overwhelming evidence against the appellant and the co-noticees, supporting the conclusions reached in the impugned order.

---