TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich render export goods liable to confiscation under section 113. The relevant portion of section 114 is as follows: Section 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc. - Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater; ***** (iii) in the case of any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater. 3. In the impugned order, no export goods were either confiscated or have been held liable to confiscation under section 113. Therefore, penalties imposed on various persons including BA and Shri Agarwal cannot be sustained and need to be set aside. Consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16A. Recovery of amount of Drawback where export proceeds not realised. -(1) Where an amount of drawback has been paid to an exporter or a person authorised by him (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) but the sale proceeds in respect of such export goods have not been realised by or on behalf of the exporter in India within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), including any extension of such period, such drawback shall be recovered in the manner specified below. Provided that the time-limit referred to in this sub-rule shall not be applicable to the goods exported from the Domestic Tariff Area to a special economic zone. (2) If the exporter fails to produce evidence in respect of realisation of export proceeds within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, or any extension of the said period by the Reserve Bank of India, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall cause notice to be issued to the exporter for production of evidence of realisation of export proceeds within a period of thirty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns showed that neither was BA a manufacturer nor did it manufacture the exported garments with help of some supporting manufacturers. It was, therefore, only entitled to only a lower rate of drawback but it mis-declared itself to be manufacturer exporter and thereby, fraudulently claimed and received higher rate of drawback. (iii) The remittance was also not obtained by BA from its authentic buyers but it was realised from some other persons. Garments were exported but the realisation was form Gems and Jewellery merchants. The drawback has been ordered to be recovered proportionately to the extent the foreign exchange realised was not sale proceeds of the exported garments. (iv) In those exports where the overseas buyers were supposed to be in Venezuala, the sale proceeds were realised from Italy. (v) In goods exported to USA, when the invoices submitted to Indian Customs to claim drawback were compared with the invoices submitted to the US Customs by the importer, it was found that the values in the invoices submitted to Indian customs were highly inflated and were 7 to 10 times the values in the invoices submitted before US Customs. (vi) Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest shall be calculated for period beginning from the date of payment of such drawback to the claimant till the date of recovery of such drawback. 13. We find that the case was initiated after an investigation by the income tax but the SCN was not issued merely on the basis of the investigation by the income tax. DRI conducted investigations independently and then issued the SCN. 14. The first assertion of the department is that BA had claimed drawback as a manufacturer exporter and no manufacturing activity was ever carried out at its premises. The fact that BA had filed shipping bills claiming drawback as a manufacturer exporter is matter of record in the Shipping Bills. The manufacturing facility was claimed to be at B-12, MCD Market, Jaipur but on verification on 15.9.2006 by the officers, it was found to be under renovation and that no manufacturing activity had ever been carried out at that premises. When asked, Shri Agarwal himself confirmed that they had not manufactured any goods at that premises and had also not taken any factory or godown on rent either. They had misdeclared the premises as manufacturing premises and obtained central excise registration. At th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at least four remittances which have been recorded in paragraph 37 of the impugned order which had no relation to the exports. These are as follows: a) Remittance of US $ 69,995 was received by BA through TT on 27.8.2003 from Fine Gems, New York through JP Morgan Chase Bank, New York. Fine Gems deals with gems. The garments were actually exported to M/s. Cedar Trading, RSA (South Africa). b) A sum of US$ 6,847 were remitted through TRO by Mr. A Sharma, Cedar Trading Mayville through American Express Bank, New York to whom no garments were exported. c) A sum of US $ 19,995 was remitted through TT dated 12.9.2003 from India Gems n Beads Inc, New York through JP Morgan Chase Bank, New York to whom no garments were exported. d) A sum of US$ 39,985/- was received through TT dated 18.8.2003 from Yakoob & Sons Holding (S) PTE Ltd. Singapore through American Express Bank, New York when the garments were exported to M/s. Cedar Trading CC, South Africa. 19. The fact that the above remittances were from persons not connected with the garments exported has not been denied by BA in the appeal before us. We, therefore, are inclined to accept the contentio....