9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of M/s. Centurion Bank of Punjab, New Delhi which was taken over by them. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: 2.1 A case of overvaluation of readymade garments by M/s. Sri Balaji Overseas, Mumbai and fraudulent availment of drawback on such garments alleged to have been exported to Russia was investigated by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence. The investigation resulted in issue of show cause notice to the exporter and the present appellant also. 2.2 Vide the impugned order the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that drawback amounting to Rs.46,28,867/- on exports ostensibly made to Russia under Rupee-Rouble Trade and Rs.10,16,381/- in respect of exports made to Dubai availed fraudulently by M/s. Sri Balaji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation of non-scrutiny of the documents presented by the exporter to the appellant is contrary to facts and the appellant-bank had acted diligently and was based on the bona fide belief that the contents of the Bills of Lading were true and correct. The actions taken by the appellant-bank were in fact in the ordinary course of business and in good faith and after following the internal policies of the bank. So long as the documents were not fraudulent on the face of it, a bank is not obligated to undertake any independent investigation to verify the authenticity of each and every st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o., Vessel and voyage NO. which in the normal course of export was not possible. They also failed to notice that the exporter had no Letter of Credit in his favour on the date of export, which is a condition for export to Russia under the Rupee-Rouble trade Agreement. These omissions on the part of the exporter resulted in grant of remittance to the tune of Rs. 3 crore which was otherwise not due to the exporter and, therefore, the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6.1 A similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Bank of Madura Ltd. & Others vs. Collector of Customs, Madras 1978 (28) ELT 396. In that case, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted by the exporter for verification to the proper authorities is not adequate to constitute an offence under Section 114 of the Customs Act in the absence of any evidence indicating the handling of goods liable to confiscation or handling of any document in relation to such goods. Therefore, it was held that banking transactions relating to the export goods carried out in the normal course of business without any mens rea cannot attract the provisions of Section 114. 6.3 Again in the case of A.S. Kotwal vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2009 (235) ELT 495 this Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed on the Bank Manager for not taking due caution before opening current account in the name of proprietor and company will no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
