TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....N. Borase and Shri C.S. Bolkute are for imposition of penalties on them and they were departmental officers; while Ruchika International is an exporter and Shri V.K. Agarwal, S.K. Agarwal & Shri M.K. Agarwal are partners of the said firm. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are based on intelligence that M/s. Ruchika International was involved in illegal exports and fraudulently claiming undue DEPB benefits by way of willful mis-statement of FOB value of textile article/fabrics exported; One live consignment of M/s. Ruchika International, which arrived for export through ICD, Miraj was intercepted and the samples from the consignment were drawn under Panchnama to ascertain the correctness of the description. The samples were tested in the laboratory of Bombay Textile Research Association, Mumbai (BTRA), who vide their report dated 31/07/2006 stated that the PMV of the product was Rs. 96/- per meter and it was noticed by the departmental officers that the FOB value as declared in the shipping bill by the exporter was Rs. 284/- per meter. Thorough investigation was undertaken and the documents relating to the earlier exports made by M/s. Ruchika International were sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as inquiry report was not furnished at all. The BTRA report on which reliance was placed can only help the department as to ascertain whether the goods sought to be exported were technically textile articles or otherwise and the BTRA is not competent to report on the composition of the product sought to be exported. The invoices of the unit manufacturing textile articles is situated in GIDC, the address which was given to the investigating authorities at the beginning itself and it was not investigated. Instead of verifying the said premises, the office premises was verified and the conclusion was drawn that the such unit is non-existent. He would then take us through the entire case records and submit that all these allegations which have been upheld by the adjudicating authority are incorrect. It is his submission that main issue and the entire findings of the adjudicating authority is based on an overseas inquiry, which allegedly revealed that Fob value declared in the shipping bill by almost ten times higher than the declared value in the bill of entry. He would submit that the inquiry report was not given to the appellants but two charts C-1 & C-2 (Annexure to page No. 122 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the submission that there is no evidence on record that these departmental officers played any role in exporter's alleged act, if any, which were beyond their knowledge and jurisdiction and as such the case made out against the exporter by the DGFT and customs have no remote nexus with the charge of collusion and connivance. It is the submission that one of the departmental officers was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceedings within the department for negligence of duty but the Chief Commissioner, Pune as appellate authority vide order dated 18/11/2014 dropped all the charges except for non drawing of samples from the export consignments; the charges of allowing exports without permission and/or maintenance records are held unproved by the competent authorities on the basis of facts; hence, these grounds have no place in the current proceedings. They would submit that the CBEC's Circular No. 10/97-Cus dated 17/04/1997 puts no condition of samples drawing and further Customs Notice No. 75/2001 dated 22/06/2001 puts only optional condition of sample's drawing for all kinds of exports. It is his submission that there are no short or non compliance on the question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon mainly the overseas inquiry conducted, certificate of BTRA and the action of the exporters regarding submitting false BRCs for obtaining DEPB licence, is erroneous for more than one reason. 6.2 Firstly, we find that the Charts C-1 & C-2 annexed to the show-cause notice purportedly supposed to be collated from the overseas inquiry does not have any signature of the officers. It is pertinent to note that these reports as per Chart annexed at C-1 & C-2, the basis was not divulged to the appellant to defend against such inquiry. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority should have given copy of the overseas inquiry conducted by the department, if any, so that the appellant could have defended or put forth his views on the same. To that extent, we find that the order seems to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6.3 Secondly, we find that the samples which were drawn by the departmental authorities on the consignments which was intercepted and sent to BTRA, the queries were regarding the technical description of the samples whether they would fall under the category of textile and textile articles; but it seems BTRA had opined that the g....