AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he premises and one laptop was seized under a Mahazar. The three hard disks of the computers and one laptop seized by the officers were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for forensic analysis to retrieve the data stored in it. CFSL furnished their examination report dated 20.10.2011. On analysis of the documents seized during search of the premises and on comparison with the documents retrieved from the hard disks, it appeared that the original invoices which indicated export of prohibited items such as, Rice, Wheat etc., and that appellants had submitted The DRI retrieved the export data for the period Apr.'08 to Mar.'09 and in respect of 52 shipping bills, proforma invoices, packing list etc., the documents reflected export of rice, wheat and pulses. Statement of Shri P. Vishnu Kumar, Director of appellant-company was also recorded. On conclusion of investigation, it appeared that the appellant exported prohibited goods such as rice, pulses, semolina during the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 through Chennai (Sea-Port). Show-cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority vide order dated 19.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of relied upon documents. The screen shots given to the appellant are not clear and such screen shots are not sufficient to defend the case. The appellant has not been furnished with the invoices relied upon by the department. The adjudication proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. (ii) The officers obtained three statements from their Director Mr. Vishnukumar apart from recording the statement from one of their staff and their CEO. The statements obtained from their staff or CEO did not bring out any fact that would confirm the commission of the offence by the company. The Director though stated that they exported after he was arrested by the DRI officers and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-II) Chennai he retracted his statement and informed that he was compelled to give such statement. (iii) The officers conducted search in Mar.'09. After lapse of two and a half years of seizing the hard disks drives and laptop from the premises they send the items to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and obtained examination report, dated 20.10.2011. In such report, among other things it is indicated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red from the office premises of VKTPL. (vii) Lastly, the notice proposed the confiscation of the alleged prohibited goods on the ground that they had mis-declared the goods in the relevant shipping bills even while not disputing the fact that whatever goods were declared in the shipping bill had not been exported. In other words, in the absence of the notice alleging non-declaration of the goods or goods sent in excess [covered by sec.113 (h)] the very allegation fails. (viii) The export consignments were stuffed and sealed in the presence of Customs officers and all the documents submitted by the appellant were accepted by the department. The appellant requested to grant opportunity to cross-examine the officers, who examined and stuffed the export containers. The adjudicating authority denied the opportunity to cross-examine, which is against the provisions of law as well as principles of natural justice. (ix) An allegation has been raised relating to proforma invoice recovered from the computer. The provision contained in section 138C for admissibility of computer documents has not been complied by the department. Therefore, any material recovered from the computer cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant ought to have been given a chance to cross-examine the witness. The decision in the case of M/s. Ambica Organics Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T.97 (Tri.-Ahmd.) was relied upon to press the point that when the requirements of furnishing a certificate is not complied that in the case of computer printouts, such materials cannot be accepted in evidence. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nanda Kumar supported the findings in the impugned order. The DRI had retrieved invoices from the computer functioning at the premises of the exporters. In all these invoices, the invoice number was same as the actual invoices furnished to Customs at the time of export. These invoices showed the list of prohibited goods. These invoices included the details of shipments showing the vessel name, bill of lading no., voyage no., etc. The explanation of the appellant that these are proforma invoices cannot be accepted for the reason that the proforma invoices will not contain the vessel name, voyage no., bill of lading etc. The appellant has not been able to explain as to how the proforma invoices contain such details. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forwarded to the exporter in a CD and the data pertaining to these shipping bills are very clear. These screen shots contain all the details of the shipping bills. All the other documents sought for are not relied upon documents. Hence, this office is under no obligation to provide the same to you to defend your case. Not only all these extra documents not relied upon but also being very old they are not traceable and hence cannot be provided. You are adviced to submit reply by 10.11.2017 and appear for personal hearing on 15.11.2007 at 03 30 p.m." 7. From the letter, it is seen that the department is relying oly on 52 shipping bills and is not relying on any other documents. But, the allegation in the show-cause notice and confiscation is made on the basis of comparison of invoices retrieved from the computer and the invoices in the EDI system invoices submitted at the time of export. The copies of these invoices have not been supplied. The department has only furnished screen shots of the shipping bills. Such screen shots are not sufficient for the appellant to defend their case. In fact, the procedure does not allow to supply such screen shots. When the show-cause notice is....