TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or an advance licence under DEEC scheme giving the specification of the raw materials required. They were issued with an advance licence No. 0510073982/4/03/00, dated 28-11-2002. Permitting them to import fabrics 100% cotton printed/yarn dyed poplin fabrics with GSM of 97 (+ or - 10%). (b) They imported a consignment giving the description as 100% cotton printed/yarn dyed poplin fabrics and filed Bill of Entry No. 109765, dated 11-12-2002 through M/s. Rakesh Kapur Cargo Helpers, theft Customs House Agent. Shri B.N. Jha G-card holder of their said CHA presented the Bill of Entry and the same was assessed by the assessing officers under second appraisement system. The assessment was, thus, done based on the documents submitted and marked f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms clearance. (g) The investigation revealed that they attempted to remove the consignment without getting it examined using the forged gate pass. (h) Shri E.K. Raju, the Manager of the appellant firm was aware of the developments and arranged for the funds. (i) Shri Manikant Choudhary could not be contacted for his version as he went missing. (j) The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d), (j), (m) and (o) of the Customs Act and permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs 10,00,000/-. He demanded duty of Rs. 37,18,018/- imposed penalty of Rs. Five lakhs on the appellant firm. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on E.K. Raju, personal manager of the appellant firm and Rs. 75,000/- on Slid B.N. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Bill of Entry. The forgery in the Customs gate pass was not known to the appellants. (g) In view of the seizure and subsequent proceedings by the Customs Authorities, they lost the order, the validity of the licence expired and the quota expired, and they have incurred heavy losses and demurrage. They reserved the right to take appropriate action in the Court of Law against the Customs authorities. (h) Section 111 (d) is not applicable as the goods are not prohibited for import. There is no violation attracting 111(m) as the variation in GSM is not significant and GSM is not significantly relevant for valuation and quality, 111(o) relates to post-importation violation which is not relevant in this case. There is no violation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue is whether what was imported was required for the export product. It has not been shown that they placed any written order asking for fabrics whose specifications are compatible to the licence issued to them. It is a clear case of importing fabrics of different specifications than what was required for the export product. This is against the letter and spirit of DEEC Scheme enabling import of the raw material duty free in advance. 6.2 The assessment was done under the second appraisement system where the assessment based on documents produced is done. The description as per the advance licence, invoice and bill of entry were found to tally and accordingly, the assessment was completed. After assessment based on documents are don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itting them to import for use in export has also expired. Further the export order has been lost long time back. Under these circumstances, the question of allowing duty free clearance does not arise. 6.5 Shri B.N Jha was the G-card holder of the CHA who handled the clearance work. He was aware that he has to produce the packing list as per the order dated 13-12-2002 of the appraiser. Under these circumstance, his feigning ignorance that he was not aware that their customs gate pass was forged cannot be accepted. His initial version that he arranged and paid Rs. 8,000/- for arranging clearance of the consignment through underhand means appears plausible. Admittedly the personal manager was aware of the developments and was party to the a....