TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so that the export obligation under each licence can be properly monitored. When the procedure is not adhered to, it results in serious consequences both to the Revenue and the importer. If the export obligation is not met, the importer is liable to pay customs duty on the goods obtained without payment of duty. Hence the need for proper logging of DEEC books. When goods are exported under a particular shipping bill it should be logged only once in the DEEC book. If it is logged again it would mean showing the same exports twice. This is not allowed. The DRI during investigation found number of instances of double logging and also the investigation revealed that on account of double logging and also due to non-fulfilment of export obligation, there was huge revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 1,44,35,162/-. In respect of five licences, the export obligation was short by 13,268 pagers. Hence Revenue proceeded against the appellants. The appellants submitted before the adjudicating authority that there was no mala fide and only due to inadvertence there was double logging. It was further submitted that in all they had obtained 30 advance licences and if the entire issue is viewed holist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority's findings that only 10,000 pagers have been exported under licence No. 7001272 against appellants claim of 11460 is contrary to facts. He has erred in not considering the export of 1500 pagers under its very licence vide shipping bill 48282 dated 22-12-1997 only on the ground that photocopy of the same was produced. Such finding is contrary to CBEC instructions. Instead of summarily rejecting the photocopy of the said shipping bill, the adjudicating authority should have given an opportunity to the appellants to obtain a certified copy of the shipping bill in question as provided under "Levy of Fees (Customs Documents) Regulation". This amounts to denial of principles of natural justice. The appellant had submitted original copy of Bank Certificate of Export Realisation (BCR) in the prescribed form to the adjudicating authority certifying realisation of 87,000 USD as export proceeds against this very shipping bill 48282 dated 22-12-97. When there is such irrefutable evidence of goods having been exported under the above shipping bills and export proceeds realised, the adjudicating authority's rejection of this Shipping Bill as a proof of export of 15000 pagers under licen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at the same time in para 85 he unequivocally holds export of unlogged quantities of 12,096 pagers against the appellants claim for 13646 under Advance Licence Nos. 7001272, 7001271, (should be 1272) 7000330 and accordingly adjusts shortfall of 9923 and 75 (9998) pagers against licence No. 7001272 and 7000330 respectively. Yet he holds that there is a shortfall to the extent of 3270 pagers without taking into account the export of balance 2098 pagers by his own admission (12096-9998) whereas if it is accepted (as the adjudicating authority has infact done) that total of 2098 pagers after adjusting shortfall against licence Nos. 7001272 and 7000330 have infact been exported under Advance Licensing scheme and export proceeds realised, it is fallacious to still allege at the same time that proportionate imported components corresponding to 2098 pagers have not been utilised for fulfilment of export obligation and demand duty thereon on this ground. Such contradictory finding is perverse and hence bad in law. (viii) Without prejudice to the above grounds, adopting highest unit price of determining value and duty instead of adopting the average unit value is also arbitrary and witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate (EODC for short). It was submitted that the certification was done only on the basis of the DEEC books in which the entries had been duly certified by Customs Authorities. It was urged that Shri Venu took utmost pains to verify the particulars. In any case, even if he had been negligent in his duties, the Customs have no jurisdiction to impose penalty on him under Section 112(a) for any violation of Exim policy and FTDRA 1992. The appropriate authority would be JDGFT and not the Customs. The appellant had exercised due care, diligence and acted in bona fide manner while giving the certificate. There has been no mens rea on the part of the appellants. Moreover, the Company had exported more than its export obligation and hence no motive could be attributed to the appellant in giving the certificate. 7.Shri S. Raghu appeared on behalf of Shri R. Srinivasan of M/s. BAX Global India Ltd. The learned advocate stated that the appellant Shri Srinivasan was working as the Dy. Manager in M/s. BAX Global India Ltd., Bangalore. He used to look after work relating to exports and imports. During his tenure he handled the work of M/s. Motorola India Ltd. M/s. Motorola India Ltd., conseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respective shipping documents calling for the same from E.G.M/Statistical Department before logging is considered." From the above, it is seen that the Customs Authorities are as much responsible for the correct logging as the exporters. In any case, we find that there are several instances where in respect of exports made no logging has been done. The details of 16 shipping bills have been submitted by the appellants to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority in fact has taken those particulars into account and has given a finding that in respect of the following two licences the export obligation has been completed. (1) 070001272 (2) 07000330 However, according to him there is a shortfall in respect of the following licences as indicated below. Licence No Shortfall (1) 07000701 1476 (2) 07002576 1199 (3) 07000735 575 Total 3270 10The total unlogged exports in respect of 16 shipping bills is 13,596. This is not disputed. However, the total shortfall in respect of the licence 070001271 and 07000735 originally according to the revenue was 9998 (9923+75). Once this short fall of 9998 has been....