2006 (9) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the respondent had forged the bank realization certificate for getting DEPB license from DGFT and based on this allegation and on investigation these licenses were cancelled by the DGFT subsequently. Before cancellation, licenses were sold to the purchaser who had imported the goods under these licenses. Show cause notice was issued to the current respondent proposing imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on current respondents. On appeal filed by the respondents the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents on two grounds, (i) the appellants were not importer, and (ii) no specific clause under Section 112 was invoked for imposition of penalties on the current respondents....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wherein the issue involved is identical as in these cases. 5.Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that penalties have been imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondent under the provisions of Section 112 without invoking any specific Sub-clause. I also find that the respondents' appeal against imposition of penalties on them for wrongly exported goods has also been allowed by the Tribunal vide its Order No. C/903-907/05, dated 17-4-2006 [2006 (201) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal)]. 6.The issue involved in these cases is whether the respondents had exported the goods, and whether they have realized the foreign exchange due to the Government. I find from our order dated 17-4-2006 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal has held as under :- "4.The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants obtained DEPB licence from the Office of the DGFT, Ludhiana. They exported the goods under those licences against 18 shipping bills during the period July, 1997 to September, 2000. They also transferred the licences in favour of M/s. Vallabh Design Products, who imported the goods under the licences. After the import, the licences were cancelled by the competent authority on the ground of forgery. The show cause notice had been issued to the present appellants proposing the imposition of penalty and duty demand from the importers. The Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand against the importers only, but no penalty has been imposed on them. 5.The gro....