TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt for the statements of Ramesh R. Desai recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (C Act, for short). It was stated that statements of Ramesh R. Desai were contradictory and in any case the petitioner cannot be implicated and punished with fine of Rs.25 lakhs on the basis of statements of self confessed wrong doer. Reliance was placed upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Haroon Haji Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 641 and Chandan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 599. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the petitioner was exonerated and no penalty or adverse order was passed in the proceedings initiated under the C Act on the basis of the same and identical evidence. Order dated 17th September, 1991 (date of issue 28th October, 1991) passed by the Collector of Customs (Judicial) was referred to. It was stated that this order was prior in point of time. It was pleaded that on the basis of the same very evidence, two different authorities have reached contradictory conclusions and the decision of the Collector of Customs (Judicial) was more appropriate and in accordance with the law. 4. Order dated 13th January, 1992 passed by the Additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have looked into this aspect and I am inclined to disagree with the contentions of the learned advocate. It is clarified that the proceedings under Section 4-L for action under Section 4-I of the aforesaid Act, have been initiated against Shri Vinod Kumar Jatia as there is an ample of evidence to show that he is a part and parcel of the entire transactions beginning from arranging a foreign supplier to the purchase of imported raw materials on preferential terms. The grounds for abetment are extremely clear in the sense that there has been a deep rooted collusion and connivance between Shri Vinod Kumar Jatia and Shri Ramesh R. Desai. This is more than meeting mind, which is crucial to abetment, collusion and conspiracy. Shri Ramesh R. Desai, though he is a co-accused in the proceedings before me, the confessional statements he had given before the customs authorities are voluntary in nature. They do not result from duress or coerce. The learned advocates objection is understandable though not justifiable. What is relevant to adjudication proceedings is preponderance of prima facie probabilities. Therefore, I do not wish to place any credentials on the averments of the learned adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence relied upon by the respondents in their order dated 13th January, 1992 is the statement of Ramesh R. Desai under Section 108 of the C Act recorded on 29th November, 1989 implicating the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence. The imported material itself could not be seized and located. It was not found to be in possession of the petitioner. No investigation was carried out to locate and seize the imported consignments. There is no evidence to show that any payment was made by the petitioner for the imported consignment or there was any correspondence between the petitioner and the third party located outside India, who had dispatched the imported material. The Collector of Customs (Judicial) in his order dated 17th September, 1991 had examined the same very statement of Ramesh R. Desai under Section 108 of the C Act. He had also referred other statements of Ramesh R. Desai recorded on 24th October, 1989, 29th November, 1989, 12th January, 1990, 22nd January, 1990, 21st March, 1990 and 22nd February, 1990 under the Section 108 of the C Act. After examining the said statements, he has recorded what was stated under oath by Ramesh R. Desai in his different statements as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by him from Shri Vinod Jatia. (xii) That he had never received, either in his factory or godown, any goods imported under Adv. Licence No.P/L/1499535 dated 24.4.89 which had been clearned by Shri H.P. Dagha and Co. These goods were delivered to Shri Vinod Jatia and Shri Rajkumar Surekha. (xiii) That out of the total C.R.C.A. sheets imported under Advance Licence No.P/L1499535 dated 24.4.89 approx. 500 M.T. was also sold to Mr. Rajkumar Surekha of M/s. Rachna Industries, Maker Tower A, 3rd floor, Cuffe Parade, Bombay and balance was sold to Shri Vinod Jatia and goods imported under B/E No.2271/39 have already been sold to Mr. Vinod Jatia. (xiv) That they have sold the imported goods in the open market without the permission of Jt. C.C.I.& E. (xv) That he had submitted bogus export documents to Jt. CCI&E's office for getting waiver of Bank Guarantee. (xvi) That facts stated in Chartered Accountant Certificate was not correct. They did not have any past export performance in the name of M/s. Hiren Metal Works, and any export order or contract, shipping bills, etc. They had not shown or produced any documents to M/s. Thar and Co. for their verification. As Mr. Jayesh Thar was kn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 111(o) of the C.A. 62. There is a suggestion in the statement of Mr. Ramesh R. Desai that Mr. Jatia like Mr. Surekah might have purchased a certain quantity of the goods. However it appears that sometimes Mr. Desai says that Mr. Jatia purchased the imported goods and sometimes he say that DEEC itself was sold to Mr. Jatia. In any case the DEEC Book and the licence was issued to the importers and it was their responsibility to use the imported goods for the purpose for which exemption from duty under the DEEC was available to them. I, therefore, do not propose to take any penal action against Mr. Surekha, Mr. Jatia and the clearing Agents. Same is the case of the Chartered Accountant, who even though, had assisted the importers in giving false documents before licencing authorities, based on which the bank guarantee condition was waived, it cannot be said that they are liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the C.A. 62. I therefore drop the proceedings against these persons. I find that vide order dated 12.9.90 the Jt. CCI&E has also more or less taken the same view except that in the case of Mr. Jatia he has held that possibly Mr. Jatia had purchased some goods from Mr. Ramesh....