2014 (1) TMI 1390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 13/2012 dated 29-5-2012 is taken up for the purpose of discussion of facts. The relevant facts of the case, briefly, are that M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises filed two Bills of Entry No. 1581 dated 1-7-2004 and 1619 dated 6-7-2004 for the import of 306.48 MTs of crude palm oil. The importer filed four TRAs (Telegraphic Release Advice) all dated 22-6-2004 pertaining to four DEPB licences for adjusting the duty liability against credit earned in the said licences for Rs. 45,12,296/-. On investigation, it was found that the said DEPB licences were forged documents and not genuine. The partner of M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises, in his statement, stated that he had purchased these DEPB licences from Mr. Rajesh (appellant herein), Proprietor of Rajesh A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commission. 2.2 The present appellants had not approached to the Settlement Commission and attended adjudication proceedings by way of filing of reply to the show cause notice and attending personal hearing. 2.3 The adjudicating authority observed that the importer, M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises failed to verify the genuineness of the DEPB licences before purchase and produced the forged licence before the customs authorities and is liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also observed that the broker T.S. Rajesekaran played a major role in arranging bogus DEPB licences and TRAs for sale and is also liable to penal action under the same provision. But he refrained from imposing penalty on the imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore the Settlement Commission. 5. After hearing both the sides, and on perusal of records, it is seen that in this case, DEPB forged licences were detected, details of transactions are available, the purchaser and brokers are identified, only the dealers who traded DEPB licences are not identified. However, after hearing both the sides on preliminary issue, I find that in the case of S.K. Colombowala (supra) Division Bench of Mumbai held that the question as to who played the main role is irrelevant for the reason that once the case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case then cannot be adjudicated qua other co noticees. The case against all co-noticees comes to an end once the order ....