TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of his for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard learned SDR. 2. The appellant was engaged in trading DEPB licences. His modus operandi was to canvas buyers by showing them xerox copies of such licences obtained from vendors. The original licence was eventually deli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Shri Chandran and stated that it was a lie. The show-cause notice issued by the department proposed penalties on the importer and other persons under Section 112 of the Act. Insofar as the appellant and others involved in the trading activity were concerned, it was alleged that they had knowingly indulged in the transfer/sale of DEPB licence or had acted as brokers for the sale of fake DEPB ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not admissible in evidence. Learned SDR has submitted that the facts alleged in the show-cause notice constitute the offence of abetment against the appellant and others who indulged in trading DEPB licences. 4. After giving careful consideration to the grounds of the appeal and to the submissions made by SDR, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased the DEPB scrips in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds is well-founded. The documents obtained by M/s. DCW from the appellant and produced before the Customs authorities for clearance of the goods was not issued from the office of the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). These were fake documents and this fact was known to the appellant. Where the fake nature of these documents was within the knowledge of the appellant, it goes without saying ....