2008 (1) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rts exported by them during the period May, 2001 to May, 2003. On investigation, it transpired that the market value of the goods exported was in all cases less than the drawback claimed. The exporter had not received the sale proceeds from the foreign buyers. Therefore, a notice was issued to M/s. GGE to recover the undue drawback already sanctioned and to reject the pending drawback claim which appeared to be not admissible. The notice also proposed to penalize GGE under Section 114 (iii) of the Act for having rendered the goods of a declared value of Rs. 9,78,57,290/- (FOB) liable for confiscation under Section 113(h)(ii) of the Customs Act. There was also a common proposal in the notice to impose penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proved that M/s. KBS Manian & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. executed illicit export joining with M/s. GGE. 2. Moving the applications on behalf of the appellants, the ld. Senior Counsel submits that the show-cause notice carried a caption 'Notice under Rule 16A of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75 of the Cu Act, 1962.' The notice required M/s. GGE to show- cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai as to why the drawback amount received by them should not be recovered along with interest and also why a pending drawback claim should not be rejected. It is the contention of the counsel that penalty under Section 114 of the Act can be imposed on a person only on a finding of his having rendered any goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the exporter' which led to his imposing impugned penalties was made without basis. The penalties deserved to be vacated. 3. Ld. SDR submits that the role of the appellants is explained in the notice and the adjudication order. The CHA had issued directions to shipping liners to divert the export consignment to Dubai whereas the shipping bills had indicated the destination to be Switzerland. The CHA could do this only because they were actively involved in the exports by GGE for undue duty drawback. Shri Vignesh was holding the position of Managing Director in both the appellant-firms. M/s. KVS Exports Pvt. Ltd., had procured cheap T shirts for exporting at a higly inflated value to facilitate claim for undue drawback. Shri Vignesh had ....