TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... scheme. Under the scheme, the imported goods are supposed to have been used for the manufacture of goods to be exported. The main charge against the appellant is that they disposed of certain quantity of the imported yarn in the local market. The proceedings initiated against the importer culminated in the issue of Order-in-Original dated 19-2-1998 by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demanded in the show cause notice and imposed penalties on Shri Mangilal Shah and Shri Jitender Shah Directors of M/s. Kozy Silks Pvt Ltd. The appellants approached this Bench for relief. While remanding the case to the Original Authority, the CESTAT gave the following directions. "On going through the facts of the case, we f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported goods were hypothecated to the State Bank of Mysore, the Commissioner erred in totally ignoring the claim of the appellant. The learned Commissioner erred in observing that "it is quite possible that the stock was available as on 31-7-1996, but was not available as on the date of Mohazar. Further why no hypothecation statement for the subsequent period have not been forthcoming." (ii) The investigating officers of the DRI did not verify the stock lying in the godown of the State Bank of Mysore despite the fact that this was brought to their notice and they took possession of the said godown. (iii) The learned advocate furnished details of hypothecatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uress. (vii) The charge against the appellant is entirely on the basis of the statement. There is no corroborative evidence at all. No incriminating evidence in the form of sale invoice. Delivery challan/transportation documents have been found by the DRI Officers during the course of investigations. (viii) The DRI have not established the complete chain of events namely from the time of the import of the impugned goods to the alleged disposal. (ix) The learned advocate relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. State of UP - AIR 1994 SC 470 and said that in the absence of corroborative evidence, duty l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e JDGFT, Bangalore. As per the scheme, the appellants should fulfil export obligation, in respect of each advance licence. The DRI officers visited the appellants premises on 29-8-1996. They conducted thorough search and recovered certain documents. Subsequently, they took the statement of Shri Mangilal Shah and other Directors. Even though the total quantity of import under the advance licence was 30,623.930 per Kg of mulberry raw silk yarn, they completed the export obligation of 1242 Kgs. only. At the time of investigation, the imported goods were not available. It is the contention of the appellant that the stock was available and the same was hypothecated to the State Bank of Mysore. In order to examine this issue only, the case was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charged in full." We agree with the finding of the Commissioner that the imported stock was not in existence on the date of mahazar. There is also no evidence that they have been utilized in the discharge of export obligation. Hence, condition (vi) of the above notification has been violated. In these circumstance, it is not necessary to show the complete chain of activity, right from the procurement of the imported goods to their ultimate disposal. The burden of showing that the imported goods have not been disposed of is clearly on the appellants who have availed the notification. Their contention that the goods are in existence under hypothecation to the bank cannot be accepted in the light of the Commissioner's findings. The appellant i....