TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the escrow account for liquidation of Indian debt with erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which culminated in the impugned order, the value was re-determined, claim for drawback was denied, goods were confiscated, penalties were imposed against exporters besides others who were associated in the scheme for illegal availment of drawback. The exporting units were M/s Specialist Exports and M/s Radheyshyam Exports Pvt Ltd and the two key individuals who were alleged to have masterminded the scheme are Shri Kiran Nagindas Vohra and Shri Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehra. Not unnaturally, all filed appeals against the order of adjudication. 3. The Tribunal, vide order no. 350-353/08/C.II dated 26th June 2008, remanded four of these to the original authority and thereafter the remaining three too vide order no. A/394 to 396/08/CSTB/C-I dated 4th July 2008. The fresh adjudication orders no. 88/2009/CAC/CC/KS dated 11th May 2009 and no. 89/2009/CAC/CC/KS dated 13th May 2009 of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai dropped proceedings against Shri Kiran Nagindas Vohra but while confirming the denial of drawback and confiscation of the goods reduced the penalties on others.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.1.3 of the order. If the cross-examination of Naik and the conclusion of the Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) drawn therefrom is contrary to the overwhelming evidence on record, then, we do not find any reference to such evidence save and except the interim replies given to the show cause notice wherein the said Vora - appellant before us purports to deal with the allegations in the show cause notice on merits. We do not find the Tribunal referring to any independent corroborative material. If indeed there was any, it was the duty of the Tribunal to have expressly referred to it and relying upon the same, overturned the order of the Commissioner. Instead, the Tribunal makes reference to the general principle that retraction of statement and cross-examination of certain persons would not make any dent in the plethora of evidence produced by the Department and confessions of various persons. True that the same may be dealing with other appellants and their cases. Equally true it is that their appeals were, therefore, without any merit. However, it was the duty of the Tribunal to have referred to the specific allegations against the appellant allegedly floating fictitious comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be highlighted that the Hon'ble High Court did also observe that '14. Suffice it to note that before the Commissioner viz. Adjudicating Authority, when all the materials were placed by both sides, he had not only the statements which were later on retracted but the response or replies of other noticees. We are rather surprised that the Adjudicating Authority and equally the Tribunal follows in all such cases as a routine, a pattern. The pattern being those noticees who were called upon to show cause filed their response and replies in writing. They rely upon certain documents which may be also relied by the Revenue and emanating from the Revenue's record. The Tribunal as also the Adjudicating Authority in this case has proceeded on the footing that there is no denial of the existence of the documents or their contents. There is no dispute raised in that regard. Therefore, the Tribunal has permitted cross-examination of the noticees either by the department or by the co-noticees. We are mindful of the fact that in adjudication or such proceedings, strict rules of evidence or the law of evidence may not be applicable. However, what the principles of natural justice demand is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with similar allegations as that of the appellant in Customs Appeal No.97 of 2014 - Kiran Nagindas Vora. Mr. Motwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has canvassed detailed submissions in support of the appeal of Mr. Mehra. However, he would submit that the Tribunal has completely omitted from consideration, the allegations against Mehra and specifically levelled by the Revenue. Similarly, his specific stand and to the contrary has also not been referred by the Tribunal. In that regard, our attention is invited to the Tribunal's order at paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. It is alleged that Mr. Mehra's case has not been referred at all. It has been also pointed out to us that while the Tribunal makes a reference to the case of Vora, it fails to notice that similar allegations have been levelled against the said Mehra as well. The said Mehra was also before the Adjudicating Authority. The said Mehra could not succeed before the Adjudicating Authority, but was visited with penalty. In an appeal by the said Mehra against such imposition of penalty, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to have considered his appeal independently and in details. Assuming that the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of apparently of poor quality had been shipped but that the value of the goods has been inflated. In these circumstances, the penalties imposed on M/s HP Joshi & Co and Shri Ashwin Joshi under section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 would not sustain. The sole allegation against the 'Custom House Agent' is that they allowed unauthorized use of their licence to Shri Amit Champaklal Shah. Mis-use of licence is to be visited with penalties prescribed in the special law for Regulations framed under section 146 of Customs Act, 1962. The charge against Shri Ashwin Joshi was based upon a statement of Shri Shilpesh Ramakant Sawant which, despite retraction, was held to be relevant as the retraction claiming use of force was not corroborated with any other evidence of having been compelled. Thus, a proposition, which fails the test of reasonableness, must be corrected by evidence but a statement of retraction does not have to be. The findings that follow from this assumption on the part of adjudicating authority evidently lacks reason and logic. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the custom house agent, M/s HP Joshi & Co, and Shri Ashwin Joshi fail. 11. It is seen that the Hon'ble High Cou....