TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,60,000/-. The applicant imported 19,64,131 mtrs. of Video Magnetic tape totally valued at Rs. 36,27,885/- and 51500 sets Video Cassette Housing totally valued at Rs. 6,63,985/-. The total duty foregone on import was Rs. 33,72,641/-. (The details of imports made are annexed in Chart). 2.2 On the basis of an intelligence that M/s. Platirum Exports, had exported consignment of Blank Video Cassettes under DEEC Scheme in part and that the magnetic tape used in the cassettes were old and used, the officers of SIIB, Mumbai took up the shipping bill No. 763520, dated 27-5-97 for investigation which was filed by M/s. Platirum Exports for export of goods declared as blank video cassettes. The goods on examination were found to be old and used video cassettes. 2.3 The case was investigated by SIIB, New Customs House, and a SCN, dated 24-11-97 was issued to the Applicant. The said SCN proposed inter alia, (i) Demand of Customs duty of Rs. 33,72,641/- along with interest under Sections 28(2) and 28AB of Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 of Video Magnetic tapes totally valued at Rs. 35,91,965/- CIF cleared against Bills of Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant and whether on the basis of said analysis the contention of the applicant is tenable. 3. It is made clear to the applicant that settlement is based on voluntary disclosure and not by way of analyzing the provable evidence. The applicant had voluntarily to confess on the mis-dimeneour and infringement committed by him. A copy of this order may be sent to the Revenue and the Applicant. A copy of the report of Commissioner (Inv.) may be sent to the Applicant if so required by him on payment of appropriate fees and a copy thereof need also be send to the Revenue. 3.2 The investigation Report submitted by the Commissioner (Inv.) of this Commission was forwarded to Commissioner of Customs (EP) on 16-1-2002. 3.3 M/s. Platirum Exports was informed by the Secretariat vide a letter dated 16-1-2002 about preparation of Investigation Report by the Commissioner (Investigation) and if M/s. Platirum Exports desires to have a copy of the same then the same can be had on payment of required fee. 3.4 By its letter dated 16-1-2002, the ld. Advocate for the Applicants having deposited the requisite fee requested the Commission to send the Investigation Report of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report of Commissioner (Inv.) is as below :- Point No. 1 : Is the contention of fulfilment of export obligation in relation to imports made correct ? Submission : In this case, statements of Shri Tejinder Singh Makkar, partner of the exporting firm M/s. Platirum Exports were recorded on 2-6-97 and 3-6-97 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. In those statements he admitted that the item under export i.e. video cassettes were manufactured by them at their factory at Ludhiana and by other job workers, by fitting old/second hand/pre-recorded/waste/rejected inch video magnetic tapes procured by them from various sources in the market. Regarding duty free imported video tapes, he stated that the same had been sold in the local market to various parties on cash basis without any bill and that they did not maintain record of receipt and disposal of goods imported duty free under DEEC scheme. He further stated that the cassettes in the past consignments were also make of old/used and rejected tapes. Statements of Sh. Lalit Kumar Goswami and Shri Deepak Agarwal, other partners of M/s. Platirum Exports recorded on 24-11-97 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (S.C.)] In this case the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 when found to be voluntary and not vitiated in any manner, admissible in evidence. 3. M/s. D.L Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ) C. Ex., Collectorate, Cochin [1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] In this case the Hon ble Supreme Court in Para 20 of the order held that confession is one of the species of admission dealt with under Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Section 164 of the Code. It is an admisson against the maker of it, unless the admissibility is excluded by some of these provisions. 4. CEGAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi, in case of Kripalsingh v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow [2000 (188) E.L.T. 654 (Tribunal)] had dismissed the case filed by the importers on the basis of the said well settled law by Hon ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the exporters violated conditions No. (ii), (vii) and (viii) and in turn condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 162/95 claimed by them. Thus the goods were also appeared to be had been imported in contravention of Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required by them from the records produced on 19-4-2002. The applicant also handed over on 19-4-2002 a letter addressed to SIIB Exports, Mumbai on the spot to the representative of the Revenue and the letter, inter alia, reads as under :- The import bill 9697 i.e. P.E. 1 was shown to me and inspected by me but no documents which is required was found. Hence, requested Mr. Deshmukh to get the details of the documents required by us. The file was returned. B.E. 3552/9-12-96 L R was also attached 3549/9-12-96 with the documents required 10674/27-1-97 11078/28-3-97 S/B 751927/16-5-97 001230/7-2-98 5.3 The Commission drew the attention of the Revenue to a letter dated 9-5-2002 of the Commission addressed to the Commissioner (EP), Mumbai and informed the Revenue that there was no reply received from the Revenue to this letter. The Revenue replied to the letter of the Commission that a copy of the same was not immediately available with them on this date. The next date of hearing was five on 29-8-2002 at 3.00 P.M. 5.4 On the hearing held on 29-8-2002, the followings are emerged :- (a) Commissioner (Inv.) re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. Secondly, the applicant could obtain only the following documents was documentary proof of the location of their manufacturing premises and of transportation of duty exempt imported material to the said factory which are submitted before the Commission :- 1. Lorry Receipt No. 137495, 137479, 240921 and 240920 of Shakti Highway Carriers (Regd.), Delhi. 2. Application form dated 28-8-1995 for Permanent Registration as SSI with endorsement dated 29-8-95 of the Registering Authority. 3. Inter Office Invoice No. 001, dated 12-3-97 concerning transfer of raw material to Ludhiana Office. 6.4 The ld. Advocate submitted that whatever evidence they could collect have been obtained and produced the same before the Commission. 6.5 The ld. Advocate submitted that whatever the decision given by the Commission in this case will be abided by them to show the real spirit of settlement. 6.6 The Revenue was represented by Sh. S.B. Deshmukh, Appraising Officer, (SIIB, Mumbai). 6.7 The Revenue submitted that Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division, Ludhiana vide their letter dated 28-10-2002 has, inter alia reported that on their visit to factory premises they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commission in this case will be abided by them to show the real .. settlement. 7.4 The Commission notices that the applicants are not in a position to produce statutory/documentary evidence regarding (i) transport of imported raw materials to the place of manufacture (ii) manufactured thereof in the factory (iii) despatch of manufactured good for export. The documents produced during the time of hearing like lorry receipts from Shakti Highway Carriers (Regd.) Delhi, application form dated 28-8-1995 for Permanent Registration as SSI with endorsement dated 29-8-1995 of the Registering Authority and Inter Office Invoice dated 12-3-1997 concerning transfer of raw material to Ludhiana Office could not be treated as documentary proof to establish the place of manufacture, to arrive at the quantum of manufacture in the factory and regarding the quantum of manufactured goods for exports. However, on behalf of the applicant, the ld. Advocate had willingly accepted to abide by the decision given by the Commission in this case to show the real spirit of settlement. In view of his difficulties here and in spirit of settlement, the Commission orders that the terms of settlement under sub-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
