2008 (3) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Proprietor of "Parmar Exports", an exporting concern, which had obtained IE Code for the purpose by representing themselves to be "manufacturer (SSI)-exporter". The appellant also applied for a post-export advance licence by representing themselves to be "manufacturer-exporter" as above. Later on, the appellant applied to the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) for amending their IE Code and the aforesaid application to the effect that their status should be mentioned as 'merchant-exporter' instead of manufacturer-exporter, in both the documents. This application was accepted and, accordingly, in the advance licence issued by JDGFT, the status of the appellant was mentioned as merchant-exporter. This licence permitted the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se penalty. In their reply to this notice, the appellant, apart from contesting the above proposals on various grounds, specifically requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the Manager of "Mass Steel Industries", whose statement had been heavily relied on in the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority, however, denied this opportunity to the party. The appellant also placed before the adjudicating authority transportation documents relating to the imported raw material and the export goods, which indicated movement of the goods between the appellant's premises and the job worker's premises. Contextually, it may be noted that a part of the job work for the appellants was claimed to have been performed by M/s. Heena International.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 80,48,678/- (as per Annexure I to SCN) are liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not available for confiscation, I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv)    I impose penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on Shri Manish Kumar Jain, Proprietor M/s. Parmar Exports under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962." 4. After considering the submissions of both sides, we note that this case involves import of raw material under a post-export advance licence, wherein the importer/exporter was identified as a merchant-exporter. A merchant-exporter, in the DEEC schem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ager of "Mass Steel Industries" was not afforded to the appellant. That person, in his statement given under Section 108 of the Act to the DRI, stated that the entire quantity of raw material imported by the appellant had been received by them and the same had been removed as such in a piecemeal manner thereby indicating that the raw material was not used in the manufacture of SS utensils. This is the main fact (found by the Commissioner) which formed the basis of the Commissioner's finding that conditions of the exemption Notification were violated by the appellant and hence they were not eligible for exemption in respect of the imported raw material. But the finding that the entire raw material was diverted from the appellant's job worker....