TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he arranged for import of steel on behalf of actual users as a letter of authority holder and had never arranged for import of steel other than in cases of actual users. The petitioner has further accepted that he knew Ramesh R. Desai, who was dealing in steel but he did not have any business dealings with Ramesh R. Desai. One authority has relied upon and accepted the statements of Ramesh R. Desai and whereas the other authority on the basis of the same statements felt that this was not sufficient. It is apparent that there has been error in the decision making process. Relevant statements had been ignored and not taken into consideration. The appellate order dated 22nd July, 1996, is brief and cryptic and does not deal with the contentions and issues raised by the petitioner. The said order cannot be sustained. – the order of Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce quashed - matter remanded back for reconsideration. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3347/1996 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondents : Through ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Vinod Kumar Jatia by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.80 crores. M/s Hiren Metal Works had imported the entire quantity under the licence by way of 13 consignments. 12 consignments were cleared by the custom authorities without payment of duty and the 13th consignment of 89 metric tons was pending clearance when investigations began. It was learnt that 12 earlier consignments had been sold by M/s Hiren Metal Works in the market for monetary consideration. Statements of Ramesh R. Desai, trustee of M/s Hiren Metal Works, was recorded under section 108 of the C Act wherein he had accepted that the consignments had been sold in the market. Ramesh R. Desai did not retract the said statement. Investigations revealed that the said firm had never exported in the past and did not have machinery to manufacture the product, which was to be exported. The factory itself was not operational and was closed. Therefore, there is no doubt, it has to be accepted and indeed it is not questioned by the petitioner before us that all goods imported under the DEEC scheme had been diverted and sold in the market. The question raised is whether there is any material or evidence to show and prove involvement of the petitioner in the said import or sale of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he debts. Vinod Kumar Jatia recommended foreign suppliers for import of goods on the understanding that 90 days credit would be given on D.P. basis. Vinod Kumar Jatia was the middle man. But, there was no written agreement between Ramesh R. Desai and Vinod Kumar Jatia and there was also no correspondence between them. Ramesh R. Desai had offered Vinod Kumar Jatia should purchase the imported consignment at a price less than Rs.500/- per metric ton on the prevailing market rate. Apart from this, there was no other evidence or reference in the order dated 13th January, 1992. 7. The appellate order dated 22nd July, 1996 is brief and cryptic and simply records as under:- The Committee considered the arguments and the entire records of the case carefully. The Committee observed that it appears that the appellant has completely been exonerated by the Customs authorities. He also contends that there is only the uncorroborated contention of the co-accused based on which the adjudicating authority had held him responsible and imposed a penalty on him for abetting in the misutilisation of the imported goods against the licence. The learned advocate submitted that contention of the co-ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as a manufacturer/exporter. (iii) That they have imported the full quantity against this licence, but some quantity of about 90 M.T. was pending clearance. (iv) That the resultant product for export under this DEEC was Ghamellas but there were not machines to manufacture Ghamellas at their Mulund factory premises. (v) That no export against this DEEC Book and Advance licence has taken place so far. (vi) That DEEC Book was sold to Shri Vinod Jatia in June/July 1989 at the rate of Rs.6500/- per M.T. (vii) That the goods were imported by Shri Vinod Jatia of M/s. Subhkaran and Sons in the name of M/s. Hiren Metal Works under D.A. basis of 90 days and the payments for remittances of all the imports has been made from time to time the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Fort, Bomabay by Shri Vinod Jatia s employees and by him also. (viii) That goods in respect of B/EIGM/No.2271/39 dated 18.9.89 of Approx. 90 M.T. of C.R.C.A. sheets which were lying in Docks was book by Shri Vinod Jatia of M/s. Subhkarna Sons, Pearl Mansion, New Marine Lines, Bombay against Advance licence No.P/L/1499535 dated 24.4.89. (ix) That he was never given any import document to C.H.A. M/s. H.P. Dagha for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the last five years. (xviii) That he never negotiated with M/s. Alesayi Trading Corporation, Saudi Arabia for exporting any Ghamellas. The copy of export order which was submitted in Jt.CCI E office was obtained through one of his friend only to submit in Jt.CCI E as this was one of a requirement of DEEC Book and that actually on the basis of this document there was no intention to export anything and he had never entered into any correspondence with M/s. Alesayi Trading Corporation . 9. The said gist indicates that Ramesh R. Desai had contradicted himself on several aspects on the nature of involvement of Vinod Kumar Jatia. He had claimed that DEEC book was sold to Vinod Kumar Jatia in June-July, 1989 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per metric ton and payments for imports were made from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Fort, Bombay by Vinod Kr. Jatia and his employees. Consignment of 90 metric tons which was lying in docks was booked by Vinod Kumar Jatia. The clearing agent H.P. Dagha Company was paid by Ramesh R. Desai by cheque, but he had received similar amount in cash from Vinod Kumar Jatia. The goods after clearance were delivered to Vinod Kumar Jatia and Raj Kumar Surekha. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other occasion it was stated that DEEC book itself was sold to the petitioner. The order of the Collector of Customs (Judicial) also refers to the statement of the petitioner recorded on 5th October, 1990 under Section 108 of the C Act. In this statement the petitioner had stated that he had not purchased the said CRCA sheets from Ramesh R. Desai, though he was engaged in import of steel from various countries for trading purpose. He has also stated that he arranged for import of steel on behalf of actual users as a letter of authority holder and had never arranged for import of steel other than in cases of actual users. The petitioner has further accepted that he knew Ramesh R. Desai, who was dealing in steel but he did not have any business dealings with Ramesh R. Desai. This clearly shows that one authority has relied upon and accepted the statements of Ramesh R. Desai and whereas the other authority on the basis of the same statements felt that this was not sufficient. What is noticeable is that the in the order dated 13th January, 1992 reference is made only to the statement of Ramesh R. Desai recorded on 29th November, 1989 and other statements have not been referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
