TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Balani, Advocate (C/86009/2021) For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Mann, Dy. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the ORDER:- In these five appeals, the Appellants have challenged the legality of the penalty imposed on them under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that intelligence was gathered by DRI, Mumbai that M/s Megatop Impex having its registered office at Mulund (West), Mumbai had exported 108 consignments of readymade garments between November, 1998 and January, 1999 allegedly to Russia in terms of Letter of Credit opened under the 'State Credit Repayment Scheme' in the name of four other firms and received drawbacks th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FERA Authorities in his written note, also pointed out that proceedings under FERA, 1973 were dropped against the original violators like Divya Enterprises & Ors., Radheshyam Exports P. Ltd. etc. and the same were accepted by the Department. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Thakur Narayandas Mulani has pointed out that the only involvement of this Appellant in this case was that he had introduced the proprietor of M/s. Megatop Impex to the bank to open his account and obtain LC as he was a friend of Appellant Mulani. Some of the Appellants also, including this Mulani were stated to have been denied cross examination of the relied upon witnesses like Ram Punjwani, basing on whose statement he has been implicated. Learned Counsel for Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were received by proprietorship firm M/s. Megatop Impex and Appellant had not signed on any export documents, nor received the LC for export to Russia. Similarly, Appellant M/s. Unimarine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. urged through his pleader that the Managing Director of the Company was not examined under Customs Act but his statement recorded under Section 40 of FERA, 1973 and 49 of FEMA by the Enforcement Director has been used in this case, when Appellant was discharged in those proceedings instituted under FERA and FEMA and basing on the statement of Manager Commercial or M/s. Sydneyco Shipping Services, Dubai recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, this Appellant has been prosecuted though in the bill of lading it was specifically men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a fraud by over valuing goods, exporting it up to Dubai instead of Moscow but Indian exporters could encash LC and also received DBK in furtherance of which Act Appellants had played their respective roles. He further reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and requested for none-interference of the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner against these Appellants who have defrauded the Government of India. 6. I have gone though the case record and the written submissions filed by the parties. Neither in the order passed by the Commissioner nor in any of the relied upon statements, which were taken on record without opportunity of cross examination, there is any reference of direct participation of any of these Appellants in....