TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Customs (Jodhpur). Three appellants - M/s Chandrahans Brothers, M/s P.G. Foils and M/s Kasa Infra Ltd. are in appeal against demands of customs duty and of penalties. All other appellants are against imposition of penalties under various provisions of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Ms. Chandra Hans Brothers (Main Appellant) had exported 100% polyester fabrics during period 11.08.2008 to 25.10.2008 under the claim for DEPB benefit. The Revenue entertained a view that these goods which were exported were substantially over valued in order to avail inadmissible benefit under DEPB scheme. Investigations were carried out and finally SCN dated 27.08.2013 was issued to 17 persons to demand customs duty a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the due process and resulted in denial of natural justice. g) The order of the original authority to recover customs duty from more than one persons/ companies, jointly or severally, is legally untenable. h) There is no concept of treating a person as deemed importer to demand customs duty. Section 28AAA was introduced in the Customs Act only w.e.f. 28.05.2012. As such prior to that date for DEPB related cases duty cannot be demanded from exporter. 4. On behalf of M/s. P.G. Foils it is contended that they have purchased DEPB scripts from Ms. Chandrahans Brothers. First of all there can be no demand of customs duty jointly and severally, from more than one persons. Further, they have purchased DEPB scripts which are duly issued by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There is no evidence or documentary proof that the officers have knowingly abeted any illegal transaction of the exporter. 7. The other appellants contested the imposition of penalties of different amounts, imposed on them. 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels representing the appellants and the Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue. 9. The present appeals are on the main issue of over valuation of export items in order to claim ineligible DEPB benefits. First of all we noticed that the demands of Customs duty have been made under two categories. The demand of Rs. 45,36,699/- was made from M/s Chandrahans Brothers who were actually the exporters, holding them as deemed importer. We find force in the claim of the main appellants that the legal provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The present order in so far as it relates to confirmation of Customs duty jointly and severally on more than one person is accordingly, not legally sustainable. 11. We find that the whole issue came up mainly on the ground of availing ineligible benefit of customs duty concession, it is necessary to determine such liability correctly. The main appellant strongly contested the rejection of FOB value originally assessed by the officers and comparing the value of different exporters to determine the FOB value of the main appellant. Since we find that the original authority has not properly arrived at, the identity of the person from whom, duty demand can be confirmed and ordered recovery of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action. The original authority has not appreciated the factual background of the case. The original authority recorded that they have conducted in a careless manner and facilitated the export of overvalued goods. It is strongly contended that there is no evidence of the custodian acting beyond their statutory obligation with any malafide motive. 15. The Thar Dry Port have also filed another appeal against imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009. It is contended that they have not violated any provisions of the said regulation. There is no need for the custodian to collect or keep any document relating to period prior to the receipt of export at the ICD. They have maintained all th....