9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Santosh Kumar of the Indian Company was entrusted with the job of getting the consignment cleared from customs. It would be pertinent to note here that PHHL was entitled to claim exemption from the custom duty in respect of the above referred goods. Mr. Santosh Kumar in order to get the goods cleared from customs without payment of customs duty, forged an undertaking purported to be executed by Shri Ramesh Chand of PHHL and submitted the same to the Customs Department. He not only got a forged rubber stamp of PHHL prepared from the market without any authorization in this regard, but also forged the signatures of Mr. Ramesh Chand on the said documents. He also forged signatures of an PHHL official on the declaration form under Rule 10 of Customs Violation Rules and a declaration form showing the name of PHHL as importer of the goods. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Mr. Ramesh Chand stated that the aforesaid act was conducted by him out of his own negligence and ignorance without any instructions from the company he was working with. Vide order dated 6.11.2009, the Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed duty of Rs.1,16,615/- on the Indian Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as well. 6. Impugned orders were assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds; (i) the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy General Manager, who in view of the guidelines dated 30.7.2009 on "Banning Business Dealings", was not competent to issue such notice (ii) the petitioner has been deprived of the right of second appeal to the Board since its first appeal itself was heard by the Board in view of the impugned order dated 7.6.2010 having been passed by the CMD of PHHL (iii) there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner company and, therefore, the banning was not justified and (iv) the period of banning is highly excessive. 7. As regards the first contention, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, the learned counsel for PHHL submitted that the guidelines on "Banning Business Dealings" came into force much later after transaction with the petitioner- UK Company and they are applicable only to the persons who enter into Integrity Pact with PHHL and also agreed to be bound by the said guidelines. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the aforesaid guidelines came into force after order had been placed by PHHL and the goods had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g come into force at a much later date and on having been agreed to by the petitioner. In any case, the appeal of the petitioner having been considered by the Board, which is the second appellate authority, under the guidelines, no prejudice to the petitioner was caused due to denial of one appeal. I, therefore, find no merit in the first two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. As regards the third contention, it is petitioner's own case that it had requested the Indian Company to take steps for clearance of the consignment with the Customs. The Indian Company, therefore, was acting as an agent of the petitioner-UK Company in the matter of clearance of the consignment from the Customs Department. Admittedly, Mr. Santosh Kumar who forged the stamp of PHHL and signatures of its official was an employee of the Indian Company, which was acting as an agent of the petitioner - UK Company in the matter of release of the consignment. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Mr. Santosh Kumar was acting as an agent/ representative of the petitioner - UK Company while pursuing the matter with the Customs Department. It is true that there is no evidence of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 sent to PHHL would also show that one Director of the petitioner company was also a Director of Indian Company. Mr. Inder Kumar Bisnoi, Managing Director of the petitioner company was a Director of the Indian Company, though he claims to have been appointed with effect from 7.4.2008. The declaration in this regard was filed only on 1.7.2010 which indicates that the said resignation could be antedated by him. The commonalty of the Director is to be viewed in the light of the statement of Mr. Santosh Kumar claiming the petitioner - UK Company to be a foreign company of the Indian Company and the UK Company giving address of the Indian Company as its India office address. This finds further corroboration from the fact that Mr. Santosh Kumar was working not only with Indian company but also with UK Company and even the logos appearing on the letterhead of the petitioner - UK company and the Indian Company was same. 12. As held by the Apex Court in Patel Engineering Ltd. versus UOI [(2012) 11 SCC 257], the State which has the right to enter into contract with any person also has a right to decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person for a legitimate purpose. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
