TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(FMS), Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS), Market Linked Focus Production Scheme (MLFPS) and Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). Investigation revealed that appellant and others used to file the shipping bill at ICD, Tughlakabad by showing a country as 'Country of Destination', which was notified under Chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy for availing the benefit of FMS/SFMS/MLFPS/MEIS, and after clearance of such shipping bills by the Customs, they used to fraudulently amend the transferee copies (TR-1/TR-2 copies) of the shipping bills to change the colour of destination to a country, which was not notified under Chapter 3 of FTP (for availing benefit of the incentive scheme). It further appeared that such fraudulent amendments were carried out by the key person of concerned freight forwarding agency, who booked the containers with the shipping line for export. Therefore, the goods were actually exported to the fraudulently changed intended destination, instead of the destination disclosed to the Customs (as notified in Chapter-3 of FTP). After, the export, the appellant approached the DGFT for issuance of incentive scrip on the basis of country of origin declared to the cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue made a comprehensive reference to the Additional DGFT, New Delhi by letter dated 05.09.2016. From reply dated 14.09.2016 received from Dy. DGFT it was revealed that the DGFT has issued four (04) Focus Market Licenses scrip to the appellant against their exports covered under 17 fraudulently amended shipping bills, but only three FML scrip were subsequently registered with the Customs EDI System at ICD, Tughlakabad. The fourth FML scrip No. 0519032887 dt. 04.08.2017 was not registered with the Customs. The aggregate amount of the other three scrip was Rs. 22,37,970/-. As against the other three shipping bills where goods were shipped through M/s IAL Logistics, no license / scrip had been issued by DGFT. 8. Statement of Proprietor of the appellant Sh. M. P. Singh was recorded who admitted that on the request of the buyer of the goods, he had directed the freight forwarding agent to change the destination. 9. Show cause notice dated 09.10.2017 was issued proposing to confiscate the goods exported vide twenty shipping bills as per Annexure-A to the show cause notice having FOB value Rs.9,41,94,578/- under Section 113(d), (g) and (i) of the Act. Further, proposed to demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 76 provides that no drawback shall be allowed in respect of any goods the market price of which is less than the amount of drawback amount thereon or where the drawback due in respect of any goods is less than Rs. 50/-. 11. The Adjudicating Authority was pleased to confirm the proposed confiscation in respect of the goods of twenty shipping bills, FOB value of Rs. 9,41,94,578/- under Section 113(d), (g) and (i) of the Act. However, as the goods were not available for confiscation, nor cleared under bond, no redemption fine was imposed. However, the amount of Rs.22,37,970/- equivalent to the ineligible Focus Market Scrips was confirmed alongwith interest. Further the amount of drawback available of Rs.88,54,474/- was also disallowed and demanded under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules alongwith interest, read with Section 75A. Further, penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs each was imposed on the appellant firm through its Proprietor under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Act. Penalty of Rs.20 lakhs was also imposed on Sh. Imran Mirza, Proprietor of M/s Concorde Shipping & Logistics India (the freight forwarder) under Section 114AA of the Act. 12. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is a place outside India. Further, there is no allegation that export proceeds have not been received. Thus, the drawback cannot be disallowed. Under the facts and circumstances, it was held that the appellant shall not be entitled to benefit of FMS. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to uphold the penalty on Sh. Imran Mirza. So far the penalty on this appellant is concerned, taking notice amount of FMS was repaid with interest and penalty, penalty was reduced under both the Sections to Rs. 22 lakhs each. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant inter-alia urges that the issue before the Tribunal is whether the goods which have actually been exported can be confiscated under Section 113 and further penalty have been rightly imposed under Section 114(iii) and 114AA, although the amount was reduced. 14. Learned Counsel further submits that admittedly the goods have been exported. Section 113 of the Act provides for confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported, etc. Further, export goods have been defined under Section 2(19) - means any goods which were to be taken out of India to a place outside India. Admittedly, the goods were not available for conf....