TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was partly allowed and the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner was modified insofar as it pertained to the appellant by setting aside penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act]. The Joint Commissioner had, in his order, decided the proposals in the show cause notice dated 17.04.2018 issued to five noticees including the appellant. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, he confirmed the demand of customs duty of Rs. 4,58,537/- under section 28 (4) of the Act along with interest and imposed an equal amount of penalty under section 114A. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the appellant under section 114AA. The Joint Commissioner held that the goods imported by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and it was found that the values of scrips were enhanced in the customs EDI system by some persons. It has been confirmed by the DGFT that it had never issued scrips for the enhanced values. The scrips were issued by DGFT for much lower value, but the values were inflated in the customs EDI systems. The importers, including the appellant herein cleared goods using the inflated value of the DEPB scrips instead of paying duty. As far as the appellant is concerned, it utilized DEPB scrips No. 0510332222 dated 22.08.2012 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to M/s Albatross Gems Pvt. Ltd., Karol Bagh for value of Rs. 56,091/-. This value was fraudulently enhanced in the customs EDI system to Rs. 25,67,974/- i.e. by almost 50 ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant under section 28 (4) with interest and imposition of penalties. These proposals were confirmed with the Joint Commissioner in his order and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order except to the extent of setting aside the penalty under section 114AA. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. Submissions of the appellant 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following submissions : (i) The demand of duty under section 28 (4) can be made only if the non-payment or short payment of duty is by reason of collusion or any willful statement or suppression of facts and none of these were present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions on behalf of Revenue 9. Learned authorized representative for Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. He further submitted that : (i) There was a racket of DEEC and DEPB scrips being used in ICD, Tughlakabad by fraudulently enhancing their values in the Customs EDI system. They were used to evade paying duty. (ii) The question whether the importer which had paid some amount to purchase such scrips was still liable to pay import duty or not has been decided by this Tribunal in the following cases in favour of Revenue :- (a) M/s Munjal Showa Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Delhi - IV) and M/s Friends Trading Co. versus Union....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the records of the case and considered the submissions advanced by both sides. 11. The undisputed facts are that the appellant had cleared goods without paying customs duty by utilizing the DEPB scrip to the extent of Rs. 4,58,537/-. That DEPB scrip was issued by the DGFT for a value of Rs. 56,091/- only to M/s Albatross Gems Pvt. Ltd. The appellant neither purchased the scrip from M/s Albatross Gems Pvt. Ltd. nor did it verify the value of the scrip. In fact, the appellant did not even contact M/s Albatross Gems Pvt. Ltd. The value of the scrip was, fraudulently recorded in the Customs EDI System as Rs. 25,67,974/- i.e., it was inflated by about 50 times. The appellant cleared goods using this fraudulently inflated value of the DEPB s....