TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Monomer and Styrene Monomer from various countries on payment of duty under advanced licence scheme. They imported Butyl Acrylate Monomer from Singapore and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 73/2005-Cus., dated 22-7-2005 on the basis of certificates of origin issued under India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (ISCECA). It was seen that out of 900 MT of Butyl Acrylate Monomer imported M/s. JIL sold part of the cargo to the various parties in India on bond transfer basis as detailed below : S. No. Name of the buyer Quantity of butyl acrylate 1. M/s. Plasticisers Polymers Products, Silvassa 40 MT 2. M/s. Atulit Chemicals Products, Indore 50 MT 3. M/s. Soham Polymers Private Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor General of Customs, Singapore. They argued that if at all there was any collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was by M/s. Marubeni or M/s. NU Alliance which were not their employee or agent. The appellants relied upon the following judgments: 1. Kalpataru Power Transmission v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 619 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 2. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 246 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 564 (Tri.-Del.) 4. Spic Organics Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Mad.) 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g.) 17. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CC, Jamnagar - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. And argued that these judgments will cover their case and as per principle of judicial discipline the adjudicating authority should have followed these judgments. They have also contested that the extended period is not applicable in their case. On going through these judgments it is found that these judgments particularly the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment is on a different footing. In the present case this is a case where a suppression or misdeclaration was delivered by showing Singapore as the country of origin with an intention to avail the concessional rate of duty. The argument that the suppliers from foreign countries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public of Singapore, from the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, subject to the condition that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the exemption under this notification is claimed are of the origin of Republic of Singapore, in accordance with provisions of the Rules of Origin, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 59/2005-Customs (N. T.), dated the 20th July, 2005. 2. This notification shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of August, 2005." 5. A careful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had obtained falsely declared CECA certificates for the following exporters also for their use in exporting Acrylates not of Singapore origin to India. (1) ... (2) Nu-Alliance Pte Ltd. (3) ... The details of the falsely declared CECA certificates obtained by Marubeni Chemical Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. and used by the 6 exporters (including Marubeni Chemical Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) are enclosed herewith. .......It also merits mention that this is the first case of obtaining of country of origin certificates under India-Singapore CECA by fraud/mis-decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....import but transfers the benefit to the purchaser of the DEPB scrips, as has been done in the present case, the element of fraud will not vanish and the benefit fraudulently given will not become lawful merely by passing it on to the purchaser. There is no reason to put a narrow construction on the provisions of Section 28(1) by holding that the duty-credit benefit fraudulently obtained which has resulted in non-levy of import duty should be differently viewed in the case of imports made by exporter himself and in the hands of the buyer of the scrips. The very purpose of the law will be frustrated and fraud will be encouraged if the stand suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellants is to be accepted. Such a course will subject the p....