TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Syed Ali [2011 (2) TMI 5 - Supreme Court] and subsequently followed by various other High Court, it has to be held that DRI officer was not the proper officer for issuance of show cause notice for the purpose of demand of allegedly erroneously granted excess draw back. Therefore, the show cause notice having been issued by ADG, DRI Delhi, is without jurisdiction and consequently the impugned order become void ab initio and cannot be upheld. The same is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction itself. Merits - Mis-declaration of goods - Value of goods as also port of discharge are contrary to even the procedure adopted by the Customs authorities - As per report of Consulate General of India at Dubai, only small fraction of iron was auctioned by Dubai DHS 31000 equivalent to ₹ 3,10,000/- - Revenue alleged that goods are overvalued as the goods have been examined at the end of supplier also, therefore, it cannot be alleged that goods were undervalued in the absence of contemporaneous price for the purpose of like kind of goods. Held that:- It was also found that out of 3 merchants/financiers only one company was not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In addition to confirming the draw back given to the said three exporting units, penaltuy of ₹ 40 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Kulbhushan Goyal, son of Shri Ramesh Goyal and penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Ramesh Goyal in terms of provisions of section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. As per the facts on record, three units are engaged in the manufacture and export of various cycles parts. The dispute in the present appeal relates to forty one consignment of bicycle parts exported by the appellant to Iran, Tehran and Egpt under the claim of draw back. As per the appellants the said exports were made though Merchant brokers located in Dubai and the parts of the bicyle were either procured by them from indigenous manufacturers or from the various raw material required for manufacture of such bicylcle parts were procured from the local market and bicycles parts were manufactured by them. 4. Based upon some intelligence received by the DRI as regards, the fraudulent export of bicycle parts to various Dubai parties, under export executition scheme like draw back DEPB etc, search operations were conducted at the factory cum residential prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng bill of lading produced by the appellants wherein the final destination was shown as Bandar Abbas (Iran), he admitted that there were discrepancy in the two bills of lading. 7. When the bill of lading produced by Shri Navdeep Goyal Branch Manager of Shipping line was shown to Shri Kulbhashan Goyal, he deposed that inasmuch as the same was a photocopy, he doubted the authenticity of the same. The concerned shipping line should be called for verifying its authenticity 8. The DRI also conducted inquiries at Dubai port and procured a letter dated 10.12.03 from . Consulate General of India, wherein he reported that consignment covered by 5 bills of lading were auctioned by Dubai Customs for a meager amount of DHS 31,000 only. From the said report of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, Revenue entertained a view that the exports made by the appellants indicating Tehran as the port of despatch were actually deloaded at Dubai and inasmuch as same was auctioned at 31000 drums, the consignment was overvalued with a purpose to claim more draw back. 9. On the basis of investigation conducted by the Revenue and on the basis of overseas inquiries, Revenue entertained a view that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id report, the entire duty draw back claim by the appellant cannot be denied. As regards non-existence of M/s. Clarion Logistics Middle East, it stand submitted that said company is a multi-national company having its office all over the world. The address of the M/s. Clarion Logistics was produced on record from the Internet in support of the submissions that said company is in existence. Reliance was also placed upon various decision of the judicial as also quasi judicial authorities. 11. The adjudicating authority however, did not find favour with the above submissions and passed the impugned orders. 12. We have heard Shri K K Anand, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri R K Verma, learned AR for the Revenue. Shri Anand, learned advocate raised the issue of jurisdiction of ADG - DRI for the purpose of issuance of show cause notice. Referring to the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Syed Ali reported in 2011 (265) ELT 17 SC, he submitted that the DRI was not the proper officer for issuance of the said show cause notice, in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise duty draw back Rules, 1995. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequent matter in the case of Chandna Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC New Delhi [ 2011 (269) ELT 433 (SC)], the issue as to whether the officer of DRI can be considered to be proper officer to demand duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act came up before Hon ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to Hon ble High Court to decide such substantial question of law in the light of decision in the case of Syed Ali. Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Era International vs. Union of India [ 2011 (274) ELT 6 (P H)] and Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sree Enterprises vs. CC [2011 (274) ELT 12 (AP)] while dealing with an identical issue held that in the light of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Ali , the DRI officer cannot be held to be a proper officer for seizure of the goods or for issuing the show cause notices. In the light of the above decision, the appellants contention is that show cause notice issued by DRI cannot be held to have been issued by the proper officer in which case, the appeals are required to be allowed on said short ground itself. 14. It is seen that after the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Syed Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of cases of export under the drawback and Export Promotion Schemes. Further para 5 of the said Circular reads as under: 5. Further, it has been decied that the proper officer for the issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of cases under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall, henceforth be as under: 16. As is seen from the above said para of Circular, show cause notices are required to be issued in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Draw back Rules, 1995 within the monetary limit laid down in the said circular, before any recovery can be initiated. As such, we are of the view that though there is lacuna in the said Rule 16 inasmuch as the same does not specifically provide for issuance of show cause notice and only refers to the demand made by the proper officer, but we hold that said demand has to be made by the Proper Officer by way of issuance of show cause notice, as per the understanding of the Board also in the relevant portion of the Circular No. 24/11-Cus, as reproduced above. 17. As suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the root of the case. Accordingly, by following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sayed Ali, Tribunal struck down the show cause notice issued by Commissioner (Preventive). As such, by applying the ratio of law, declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali and subsequently followed by various other High Court, it has to be held that DRI officer was not the proper officer for issuance of show cause notice for the purpose of demand of allegedly erroneously granted excess draw back. Infact, we find that after the above point was raised by the learned advocate, the matter was adjourned so as to give an opportunity to the learned DR to find out as to whether there was any retrospective amendment in terms of Rule 16 of the draw back Rules, on the line of retrospective amendment in Rule 28. On the next date of hearing, learned DR very fairly agreed that there is no such amendment to Rule 16. As such, we are of the view that show cause notice having been issued by ADG, DRI Delhi, is without jurisdiction and consequently present impugned order become void ab initio and cannot be upheld. The same is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction itself. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss examination but the appellants refused to cross examine him. As such, he has found fault with the appellants and has held that inasmuch as the said two employees of shipping lines who appeared for cross examination were not accepted by the appellants for the purpose of cross examination, the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal can be adopted as an evidence. We find no justification in the above reasoning of the appellant. Admittedly, the revenue has relied upon the statement of Navdeep Goyal and not on the statement of Captain Anil Ratra or Shri Anil Sharma. The purpose of cross examination of any deponent is to test the veracity of the statement made by him during the course of investigation. It is the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal made before the officer on which the Revenue has strongly relied upon. It was his cross examination which was required to be conducted, for the purpose of fair and just adjudication. Offering of the other officer of the same shipping line, who had not tendered any statement in lieu of Navdeep Goyal, cannot be held to be a sufficient and proper course of adjudication inasmuch as admittedly any other person cannot clarify on the statement given by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities on the sole ground that such an examination was only in respect of 5% of the goods whereas for the goods meant for export to Dubai at least 50% examination is required, it cannot be said that the goods were not examined. When the goods were admittedly meant for export of Iron / Tehran and it is only later on that the Revenue makes an allegation of export to Dubai, examination of the goods conducted by the Superintendent and Inspector cannot be found fault with, especially when there is no other material or evidence to reflect upon the fact that exported goods were not cycle parts but was spurious junk material, even the examination of 5% of the goods gains importance. 23. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellants mis-declared as regards the value of the goods as also port of discharge are contrary to even the procedure adopted by the Customs authorities. The appellants had admittedly filed shipping bills where the discharge port was shown as Bandar Abbas, Tehran. The bills of lading are prepared as per the discharge port shown in the shipping bills. The said bills of lading are prepared by the shipping line, based upon the declaration made by the export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper banking channels. 25. As regards the report of the consulate general of India at Dubai indicating that the goods covered by 5 consignment were auctioned at much less price in Dubai cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the appellants exported their goods to Dubai instead of Iran / Tehran. Apart from the fact that said report is only in respect of 5 consignments whereas the draw back is sought to be denied in respect of 41 consignments, we note that once the goods left the territorial water of India, export is said to have been effective thus extending the exporter the export benefits. Apart from that we also take into consideration the appellants contention that draw back rate in respect of cycle parts was not linked to the value of same and the same was available as per piece.. As such, the value of the goods does not play much role in the grant of draw back. Inasmuch as the entire case of the Revenue is value linked, we find no justification for denial of draw back to the appellant especially in the light of evidence collected by the DRI itself as regards the supplier of the goods and realization of the banks certificate, the non receipt of any complaint by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings are prepared by shipping line and goods exported for Iran/Egypt or any Middle East country are to be routed or transported through Dubai port only. Learned Member has also not accepted observation of the adjudicating authority relating to Hawala transaction and have allowed appeal on merits also even though merits have been discussed as academic interest only. 30. I do not agree with the findings recorded by learned Member (J) on jurisdiction as well as on merit. I intend to record my own order on jurisdiction issue as well as on merits. 31. Facts as discussed in Members draft order are taken on record. 31A. First I will discuss issue based on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction Issue 32. The Member (Judicial) has proposed to set aside recovery of the amount of drawback primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the ADG, DRI, Delhi to issue show cause notice. It has been, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Syed Ali - 2011 (274) ELT A109, observed by the Member (J) that though retrospective amendment has been made by inserting clause 11 to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 Act with a view to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Table with effect from the date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette :- TABLE Area of Jurisdiction Designation of the officers (1) (2) (3) (4) Whole of India Additional Director General,Directorate General of Revenue, Intelligence posted at Headquarters and Zonal/regional units. Additional Directors, or Joint Directors, of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence posted at Headquarters and Zonal/regional units. Deputy Directors, or Assistant Directors, of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence posted at Headquarters and Zonal/regional units. [Notification No. 17/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002] 8.A clear reading of the Notification reveals that it is the Central Government which has given jurisdiction to the DRI officers to exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surd argument which totally ignores Notification No. 17/2002-Cus.(N.T.). 34. The ratio of this decision of the Tribunal was affirmed in Sri Meenakshi Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. cc, Mumbai. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka went a step further and, apart from holding that the powers of DRI officials to investigate cases and issue show cause notices was not in dispute, also held that the Director of DRI also had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute. Referring to Notification No.17/2002-Cus (NT) dated 7.3.2002, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under in Para 5: Therefore, the Director of Revenue Intelligence has been conferred with the power of the Commissioner of Customs. The power of such Officer to investigate and issue show cause notice calling upon the assessee to pay back the draw back is not disputed. What is disputed is the power of the said authority to adjudicate the dispute. Relying on the circular dated 15th February 1999, which is issued in pursuance of the Notification No. 19/90 conferring the similar power where it has been held, though they have been conferred the power to investigate and issue show cause notice, adjudication is to be done as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded differently from Section 28. In view of the available precedent, I am of the view that the recovery of drawback amount cannot be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of DRI officials to issue show cause notices. Held accordingly. Merit issue 36. However to appreciate the issue on merit in its full matrix, remaining facts already on record are also examined such as:- (a) Statements of all the accused recorded on 19.8.04,23.08.04,25.08.04,16.09.04 and 30.05.2004. (b) Recovery of documents at the residence of Shri Kulbhushan Goyal. (c) Statement of so called suppliers of cycle parts, items of supply and items which were exported and its relevancy. (d) Receipt of money in advance through TT channel from Dubai. (e) Goods are consigned to Dubai in 36+5 consignments contained in 12 (7+5) containers (against reference of 5 consignments in draft order). In present proceedings 36 consignments (shipping bills) referred in 7 containers are involved. Remaining five consignments/shipping bills stuffed in five containers were also found in Dubai Customs records which were also auctioned. (f) Goods are sent to fictitious addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y they were declaring in their shipping bills. In their support, they also stated that various components/wire were being purchased from various buyers and later they were assembling/manufacturing these and were subsequently exporting these parts under claim for drawback. They also submitted that export proceeds were received through Banking channels and payments were received in advance. 40. Para 5.4,5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 of adjudication order No. 02/Cus/07 dated 21.03.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs throw light on department s investigation. It has been observed about statements made by Shri Kulbhushan Goel and Shri Navdeep Goyal as follow: 5.4 I find that the noticees had contended that the goods, in question, were physically examined by the officers of Customs at CFS, Ludhiana and the same were cleared by them as bicycle parts. In this regard, I find that Shri Kulbhushan Goyal was confronted with three lists marked as Annexure A , B and C containing details of export consignments to Iran of his firms which were abandoned at Dubai and never reached Iran or the merchant brokers at Dubai. In his statement dated 30.03.2005 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. 5.6 I find that Shri Navdeep Goyal, Branch incharge of the concerned Shipping Line was also shown the bills of lading No. LUH DXB-1612724, LUH DXB-1612724A, LUH DXB-1612724B and LUH JEA-1612724 and on being enquired about the discrepancies between the first three Bills of Lading and fourth one, he in his statement dated 30.03.2005 stated as under:- a) The first three B/L NN copies seemed to be forged and prepared by the shipper himself showing final destination as Bahdar Abbas and B/L prefix as DXB, b) that normally term DXB was used for Dubai as destination and for Bandar Abbas BND was used., c) that on the fourth B/L copy as per their record destination was jebel Ali and B/L No. LUH JEA-1612724 d) that notified party in their B/L copy differed from DRI record. e) that delivery agent shown on Bills of Lading No. LUH DXB-1612724, LUH DXB-1612724A, LUH DXB-1612724B was DXB (Dubai) agent s name whereas the three B/L copes mentioned Bandar Abbas as final destination; that B/L copy and other documents were submitted to the Customs by the shipper for claiming drawback and had nothing to do with the shipping line; that he again clarified that shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning junk were disposed off for only 31,000 dh (Rs.3,10,000/-). Once all containers were found at Dubai and later auctioned at Dubai, no question of these consignments being consigned for Iran (Bandar Abbas port) arises. 42. It is also observed that appellants have failed to give any cogent evidence that these containers were sent to Egypt or Tehran and received there. Plea that goods were sent to Tehran via transhipment at Dubai has no legs to stand in view of numerous evidences coming on record evidencing that all containers landed at Dubai which were not got released by anyone and later auctioned. This is further supported by the facts that no export contracts have been produced. No LCs were opened. Actually advance payments from Dubai have been organized. The fact remains that payments were not received from the consignee. Actually factum of export, as such, has not been completed. 43. I have perused the report dated 10.12.2003 sent by Indian Consulate General at Dubai to the Director General, DRI in pursuance of their letter dated 1.7.2003 which is eye opener. Both the letters are referred as below: Dated:01.07.2003 Sub: Fraudulent exports by Monte Group of Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notify party Description of cargo 1 LUHDXBB1612670 M/s.Monte International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Al Shams Building Material, PB No.12694 Dubai Bicycle Parts 2 LUHDXB1612651 M/s.Monte International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Al Shams Building Material, PB No.12694 Dubai Bicycle Parts 3 LUHDXB162700A M/s.M.k. International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Abbas Rostum Bld. Material Tdg. PB No.2590, Dubai Bicycles parts 4 LUHJEA1612731 M/s.M.k. International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Clarion Logistics, PB No.17656, Dubai Bicycle parts 5 LUHJEA1612731 M/s.M.k. International, Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Clarion Logistics, PB No.17656, Dubai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived: 15/12/2002 Cargo Moved for Auction 1/10/2003 Total Number of Days = 290 Days Total Charges: 11,641 (Dhs) = Rs.1,40,507/- 48. There are other similar invoices raised by M/s.IAL Shipping Agencies (New Delhi) Ltd. (a) Invoice No. DN/LCL/552/2005 BL No.LUHDxB 612731 Number of days = 267 Total charges 9346 Dhs = Rs.11,2,806/- (b) Invoice No. DN/LCL/548/2005 BL No.LUHDxB 1612700A Number of days= 274 Total charges 9900 Dhs = Rs.12,0,579/- (c) Invoice No. DN/LCL/549/2005 BL No.LUHDxB 1612581 Number of days= 318 Total charges 12078 Dhs = Rs.1.45 ,781/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act emerging out of investigatons, appellant s insistence of cross examination of shipping line officials and departmental officers did not have any force. Mere insistence that goods were exported after examination was conducted by the departmental officers does not come to their rescue as investigations have unearthed modus operandi adopted by the appellants as discussed above. Despite non clearance of containers at Dubai, Advance payment through T.T. (telegraphic transfer) continued to come. No channel of proper documents in the form of contracts were prepared and produced. Contention that their agent at Dubai was in touch of importers at Cairo and Tehran has not been supported with documentary evidence. Actually auction of all containers and material being junk clearly destroys their all arguments. Preparation of double set of shipping bills and Bill of lading shows committal of fraud with a intent to defraud the Revenue Further, Bill of ladings were changed after documents were filed with Customs and customs examination were over. This was done to avoid examination by Customs. Role of Customs Officers is not beyond doubt and such large manipulations could not have been possibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue and by forging various documents. They had also abetted and knowingly participated in illegal transfer of money through hawala channels and suppression of the material facts. Thus they had violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993 and Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules ,1995 and therefore the disbursed amount of drawback appears to be recoverable from them under Rule 16 of Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules ,1995 . 52. As all companies namely M/s.Monte International, M/s.Monte Metal and M/s.M.K, International are directly controlled by shri Kulbhushan Goyal and Ramesh Goyal and they have indulged in fraudulent export of spurious/junk goods, which were later abandoned at Dubai, role of these persons in committal of fraud clearly comes out. Availment of drawback to the tune of ₹ 59,66,470/- without export actually having been taken place and making the whole transaction as fraudulent with Hawala ramifications makes them liable for penal provision. Actually they are mastermind behind the whole matrix of fraud. Misdeclarations/manipulations with intent to cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue, therefore, first I deal with the issue whether the show cause notice issued without jurisdiction or not. 4. I have seen in this case that the show cause notice has been issued by DRI, Delhi unit and as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995, recovery of any alleged erroneous payment of duty drawback can be demanded by a proper office. 5. The proper officer stand defined under Explanation 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as under: Proper Officer , in relation to any function to be performed under the said, means the officer of Customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs. 6. The issue whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer for the purpose of issue of show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was considered by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Ali-2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC) wherein Hon ble Apex Court observed as under:- 13. Section 2(34) of the Act defines a proper officer, thus : 2. Definitions. - .. (34) proper officer , in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandna Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC New Delhi (2011 (269) ELT 433 (SC)), the issue as to whether the officer of DRI can be considered to be proper officer to demand duty under section 28 of the Customs Act came up before Honble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to Hon ble High Court to decide such substantial question of law in the light of decision in the case of Syed Ali. Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Era International Vs. Union of India (2011 (274) ELT 6 (P H)) and Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sree Enterprises Vs. CC [2011 (274) ELT 12 (AP)] while dealing with an identical issue held that in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Syed Ali, the DRI officer cannot be held to be a proper officer for seizure of the goods or for issuing the show cause notices. In the light of the above decision, the appellants contention is that show cause notice issued by DRI cannot be held to have been issued by the proper officer. 9. Whereas the Revenue has relied on the decision of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Meenakshi Apparels Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (258) ELT 481 (Kar). I have gone through the said decision which was prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... schemes. 5. Further, it has been decided that the proper officer for the issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of cases under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall, henceforth be as under....... 12. From the said circular, it is clear that the show cause notices are required to be issued in terms of the provisions of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 within the monetary limit laid down in the said circular, before any recovery can be initiated. I have seen that Rule 16 does not specifically provide for issuance of show cause notice and only refers to demand made by the proper officer, but the said demand has to made by the proper officer by way of issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, the question arises before me whether the SCN issued by DRI for recovery of erroneously granted drawback in terms of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 can be held valid show cause notice in the light of the law declared in the case of Syed Ali (supra). 13. Further, in the case of Era International-2011 (188) ECR 38 (P H) wherein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of contemporaneous price for the purpose of like kind of goods. I further find that the Revenue is heavily relied on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal representative of shipping agency but he was not made available for cross examination. Therefore, the said statement cannot be relied on. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant exported bicycles parts which were procured from various suppliers who processed the bicycles parts. There is no single evidence on record to show that the appellant has manufactured/ used sub-standard raw materials and all the suppliers have admitted that they have provided goods to the appellants. The appellant is a regular supplier/exported various other consignments of bicycles parts of similar nature. No departmental officers were alleged that having conspiracy with the appellants and there is verification report is on record. Therefore, in the absence of any supportive evidence except the report from the Consulate General of India at Dubai which is also not conclusive. In the absence of any such supportive evidence, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has availed excess drawback claim erroneously. Therefore, I do agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
