Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1677 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - direction to re-adjudicate the case within three months from the date of receipt of the order - fraudulent export of readymade garments under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme - allegation is that the “G” Card Holder of the Appellant Company, had played the entire mis-chief by forging/impersonating the signature of Shri S.Das, the partner of the Appellant and dealt with the export consignment on his own accord for the clearance of export cargo at Haldia Port - HELD THAT:- The “G” card holder of the appellant, Shri Samar Goswami, has undertaken the job of clearance of export consignment from M/s Sungrowth Exports Private Limited without the approval of the director of the appellant company. After having come to know about the mischief done by Shri Goswami, the appellant filed a police complaint on 15.10.2003, and intimated to the Customs on 17.03.2003. Thereafter, the service of Shri Goswami was also terminated by the Appellant. The department has also obtained the signature of the partner of the Appellant company, Shri S. Das, and sent for the forensic examination, so as to acertain as to whether the signature appearing on the export documents was by him or the same has been forged by the “G” Card holder, Shri Samar Goswami. The forensic report is only an opinion for the similarities, like straight nature of commencement of the initial oblique/of ‘S’, acute angularity in the middle, compressed nature of the bottom curve and ticked manner of execution of the terminal part of ‘S’ etc. (Page-143 of the Paper Book refers) This is an opinion only that was formed on the manner of making a sample signature, which may be very closely/similarly imitated by some other person (more so, if he has some idea about Forensic Science relating to identification of handwriting). This opinion cannot change/belie the other circumstantial/corroborative facts/evidences on record. It cannot be concluded that the signature that appeared on the export document was of Shri S.Das, the partner of the appellant company. Further, there are a lot of force in the submission made by the Learned Advocate that the appellant was not in the knowledge of any mischief which has been committed by the importer. It is found that Tribunal in the case of Lohia Travels and Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Prev.) [2015 (8) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has held that When there is no evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the goods imported and also when there is no evidence to establish any wrongful intent on the part of the appellant then there is no reason to impose penalty. After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified. In absence of any investigation regarding indulgence of the CHA in clearance of the export consignment, it is found that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is being set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|