TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestigating agency, DRI, conducted investigations into the above exports of the appellants and issued a show-cause notice to them proposing to recover the DEPB credit availed by them in respect of the exports, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, as also to the goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, as also to confiscate the goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act and to impose penalty on the exporter under Section 114A of the Act. These proposals were contested by the party on numerous grounds. In adjudication of the dispute, learned Commissioner of Customs (Exports) passed the following order : 1. I deny the DEPB credit of Rs. 1,76,37,854/- on account of cancellation of DEPB licences issued to M/s. Mercantile India. 2. I conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscated under Section113 and, for that matter, no redemption was imposable that the Commissioner had travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice to impose penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the licensing authority had also issued a show-cause notice to the appellants in the same matter under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 on the basis of a report received from the DRI. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, the adjudicating authority under the said Act, had cancelled the DEPB scrips/licences in question and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15.00 laths on the appellants. Learned Counsel further pointed out that an appeal fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Apex Court. It was also submitted that, in the case of R.A. International v. Union of India - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 101 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court ousted DGFT from exercising jurisdiction over fraudulent exports under DEPB scheme and recognized the jurisdiction of Customs authorities to deal with such matters. Learned SDR further submitted that, where it was found that the export goods had been overvalued for the purpose of undue DEPB benefit, the goods became liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act and the exporter became liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Act. These liabilities wee not affected by the fact that the goods were not physically available for confiscation. It was also argued that, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion from the appellants and that, in adjudication of the case, the Jt. DGFT cancelled the DEPB scrips/licences and directed the party to pay an amount of Rs. 3 crores under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the Jt. DGFT's order the party is in appeal to the appellate authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the above amount of Rs. 3.07 crores includes the amount of Rs. 1.76 crores demanded by the Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order. For the reasons already recorded by us, this demand of the Commissioner under Section 28 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained. 6. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available on record, nor was any such document furnished to the appellants by DRI or the adjudicating authority. In the circumstances, it is difficult to consider the said exports to be 'fraudulent'. The High Court's ruling is applicable to fraudulent exports only. 7. The Commissioner imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods Such a fine could be imposed only where the confiscated goods were available for redemption, which is not the case here Hence the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside 8. The show-cause notice proposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. But the Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by learned Cou....