2023 (4) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Goods (EPCG) licences in 1997-98 for importation of knitting and embroidery machines. The appellant Shri S. Viswanathan is the partner of M/s.Pravin Tex, Tiruppur. They imported and cleared knitting machines and embroidery machines valued at Rs.1,35,87,242/- vide 4 Bills of Entry at concessional rate of duty under the said EPCG licences by availing Customs Exemption Notification No.110/95 dated 05.06.1995. The duty foregone amounted to Rs.29,99,322/-. They later produced documents regarding fulfilment of export obligation which included direct exports by the appellant and also exports made through third parties. On verification it was found that neither the EPCG licence numbers nor the name of the importer namely the first appellant herein ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms Act, 1962. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the appellant-importer under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the partner Mr. S.Viswanathan under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of Rs.1 lakh each was imposed on the third party exporters under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the demand of duty as well as the penalties imposed, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri S. Sankaravadivelu appeared and argued on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants had obtained 4 EPCG licences issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oss examination of these witnesses, the same was denied. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the demand has been raised without proper evidence and without following the principles of natural justice. The department having not furnished copies of the 162 shipping bills cannot confirm the demand merely on the basis of a few shipping bills. Further, the statements recorded did not have any evidentiary value unless corroborated with documents. So also, the appellants have not been allowed to cross examine these witnesses which would also render these statements as not admissible evidences. Other than alleging that the endorsements of the name of appellant as well as the EPCG licence numbers are not properly mentioned in the shipping bills, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exporters. This fact has been clearly established and therefore the duty confirmed is legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The main contention raised by the appellant is that they have not been supplied with copy of 162 shipping bills which is alleged to have been manipulated by the appellant. Thus, the position is that the relied upon documents (RUD) have not been served to them. Undisputedly, only copies of 8 originals and 4 duplicate shipping bills have been supplied to the appellants. Though it is alleged that all the 162 shipping bills were manipulated and the entire duty forgone has been confirmed, the department has not been able to furnish these documents to the appellant. Needless to say that appellant has to be furnish....