2018 (5) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 22.6.2004 pertaining to the DEPB license for various dates claiming adjustment of duty of Rs. 45,12,296/- against the duty payable amount of Rs. 45,63,303/-. On verification, it was found that the TRAs were not issued to Tuticorin Port but to Chennai Port and also nto issued in favour of M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises. On verification of genuineness of the DEPB license from Jt. DGFT, Mumbai, it was found that the said licenses were bogus and forged. On inquiry, it was found that the importer purchased the above four DEPB license on premium from Shri Rajesh of M/s. Rajesh Associates, a broker named T. Rajasekaran of M/s. Seven Seas International, Madurai. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods for demand of duty along wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir agent informed him over the phone and later Police complaint was filed against them. The appellant immediately arranged to repay and reimbursed the money received from the importing company to avoid any Police action against him. The DRI recorded statement from the appellant as well as his father wherein it has been clearly deposed that they do not have any knowledge about the forged nature of the scrips and that they have dealt with the same only in the usual course of their business. That the appellant has been implicated only because he has acted as a broker in the transfer of the alleged fake DEPB license to the importing company. The appellant has explained his innocence in the reply to the show cause notices. The department has n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontroverted by the ld. AR by relying on the decision in the KI International (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal had held the decision in S.K. Colombowala to be per incuriam and observed that the order of Settlement Commission will not settle the dispute of other litigants who have not approached the Settlement Commission. This Tribunal had referred the issue in this very same case for Larger Bench and the Larger Bench vide order reported in 2013 (298) ELT 540 (Tri. LB) had declined to answer the reference, giving the appellant liberty to pursue the appeal on merits. 7. Keeping aside the debate with regard to the above decisions, let us analyse the issue on the facts and evidence presented before us. There is nothing brought out from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manner provided under clause (b) of Section 112 would be liable to penalty as laid down thereunder. Thus, both, Section 111 and Section 112 of the Act operate in relation to improper importation of goods. 11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent herein is alleged to have been involved in a transaction relating to purchase of DEPB licenses by M/s. Rajshanti Metals Ltd. Undoubtedly, the transaction relating to purchase of DEPB licences, is at a stage prior to clearance of the goods under the Customs Act. The alleged act of the respondent, therefore, cannot be said to be an act or omission pertaining to improper importation of goods. Hence, apart from the fact that there is no evidence of any direct involvement of t....