TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....censes issued by the Jt. DGFT, Coimbatore. They availed the benefit of Customs Notification No.97/2004 dated 17.0.2004 and 103/2009 dated 11.9.2009 respectively and fulfilled their export obligation allegedly through some unaccounted third party firm's (manufacturer cum exporter of readymade garments) shipping bills and fraudulently obtained the EODC from the DGFT, Coimbatore. Hence, it appeared that the importer became not eligible for the benefit of the said notification, making them liable to pay customs duty forgone amounting to Rs.3,17,96,116/- along with applicable interest in terms of Conditions No. 2 and 4 of the Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.9.2004 and 103/2009-Cus dated 11.9.2009 and also making the impugned goods valued a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... including the main noticee Chromaprint (but excluding the appellant), approached the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, Chennai, and the matter was settled vide Final Order No. 27/2016-Cus dated 30-06-2016, which has been complied with by those noticees. The Settlement Commission, Chennai vide Final Order No. No. 27/2016-Cus dated 30-06-2016, imposed penalty on the applicant and co-applicants as mentioned in the table below. S. No. Applicant / co-applicants Penalty 1. Cromaprint India Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000 2. R. Lakshmi Narayana Moorthy, MD of M/s. Cromaprint India Pvt. Ltd. 1,00,000 3. R. Saravanan, Chartered Accountant 50,000 4. Shri Sundaramurthy, Proprietor, M/s. Hero Fashion 1,00,000 5. A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order. He submitted as under: A. Investigation by DRI revealed that M/s Chromaprint, in collusion with its consultant S. Kishore (appellant), a chartered accountant, and two exporters-M/s. Aviram Knitters and M/s. Hero Fashion-falsely declared exports under Chromaprint's EPCG licences despite having no business nexus with these firms. B. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17.02.2015 was issued to Chromaprint and five others proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.3,17,96,089 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA. C. Statements of the parties confirmed lack of any interconnection with the two firms mentioned at A above, except through S. Kishore. The appellant in his stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice has settled the matter before the Settlement Commission. Section 112(a) pertains to a penalty on 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 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act. The appellant admitted his role in the fraud, including receiving money for obtaining the third-party Shipping Bills which were not connected to any export made by the main noticee. Hence the act of the appellant has rendered the impugned goods liable to confiscation under section 111, and he is liable for a penalty under section 112(a). 5.1 Similarly, section 114AA pertains to a person who knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or us....