Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Monte International, M.K. International, Monte Metals, Kulbhushan Goyal And Ramesh Goyal Versus Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar

Disallowance of drawback claim - Exporter of bicycle parts to Iran, Tehran and Egypt - Jurisdiction - Whether DRI officer is a proper officer to issue show cause notice - recovery of erroneously granted excess draw back in terms of Rule 16 - Held that:- as per 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 recov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re 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 found at the address. Further it is found 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellants 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, the demand is set aside on merits. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Custom Appeal No. 528-531, 603 of 2008-CU[DB] - Final Or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d has imposed penalties upon them as detailed below;- Sl. No. Company s name Draw back (in Rs.) Penalty (in Rs.) 1. M/s. Monte International, Ludhiana 30,33,220 6,00,000 2. M/s. Monte Metals, Ludhiana 22,22,280 6,00,000 3. M/s. M K International 7,10,870 1,00,000 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 Rames .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndigenous 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 premises of the noticee on 22.1.04. Nothing incriminating was r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the raw materials for manufacture of bicycle spare parts such as hub cups, brake, screws, as also thread bars, nut bolts screw. In the said statement, he also disclosed that the said exporting units were receiving orders on fax or through E-mails and quotations were finalized telephonically in most of the cases. Sometimes he was receiving direct purchase orders from overseas buyers and sometimes the same were being finalized through merchant traders located in Dubai. He also clarified that inas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the course of investigation, the Revenue also recorded the statement of Manager of Shipping Line Shri Navdeep Goyal on 30.3.05. In the said statement, he deposed that the responsibility of shipping line was to deliver the goods up to its final destination as agreed upon and as mentioned in the Bill of lading. Bill of lading was prepared on the basis of their surveyor report (stuffing report) and E. P. copy dully signed by Customs officers and port of discharge and place of delivery on the bill .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 wer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entertained a view that the goods exported by the appellant had no buyers as is evident from the fact that same were abandoned at Dubai. Reference was also made to the subsequent report of the Consulate General of India given under its letter dated 17.1.05 clarifying that there was no company in the name and style of M/s. Clarion Logistics in Dubai and same was a non-existent unit. The fact of auction of the goods at ₹ 3,10,000 (Indian rupees) was taken as a ground that the goods exported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

they are a regular exporter of the bicycle parts to Iran, Tehran and Egypt countries and no discrepancies have ever been found in the earlier export consignments. The present 41 consignments were exports to Tehran, which was through the merchant traders and financers located in Dubai. They contended that inasmuch as the investigation conducted by the Revenue at the Indian end of the Indian supplier for supply of bicycle parts or for supply of raw materials for manufacture of said bicycle parts h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said order having not been challenged by the Customs authorities by way of filing any appeal thereagainst, the Revenue is debarred from contending that consignment was not as per the declaration. They have also challenged the result of overseas inquiries by submitting that the said report is only in respect of 5 consignments and for the reasons best known to the Dubai parties the goods stand auctioned. Based upon the said report, the entire duty draw back claim by the appellant cannot be denied. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise duty draw back Rules, 1995 stands issued by ADG, DRI Delhi Zonal unit. As per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excsie duty draw back Rules, 1995, recovery of any alleged erroneous or excess payment of duty draw back can be demanded by a PROPER OFFICER of Customs. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch officers of Customs who have been assigned specific functions would be proper officer in terms of provisions of section 2(34) of the Act. As such, by collective reading of section 2(34) of the Customs Act and Section 28 of the Customs Act, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that only such Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific function of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area, where the import concern has been effected, either by the Board or by the Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X 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 Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Ali and others, Government of India issued Notification No. 41/11-Cus (NT) dated 6.7.11 wherein the officers of DRI and Commissioner of Customs and other lower officers were declared to be the proper officer in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act for the purpose of Section 17 and Section 28 of the Cu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under section 28 of the Customs Act. 15. However in the present case, we find that show cause notice stand issued in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise duty and Service Tax draw back 1995. The said Rule, for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: RULE 16. Repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback and interest.- Where an amount of drawback and interest, if any, has been paid erroneously or the amount so paid is in excess of what the claimant is entitled .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

note that said Rule 16 does not, in clear terms, refers to issuance of show cause notice but the same refers to the demand being made by a Proper Officer of Customs. How this demand has to be made without the issue of show cause notice and without giving an opportunity to the persons concerned to putforth his defence as against the alleged excess erroneously granted refund, stands answered by the Boards Circular No. 24/2011 Cus dated 31.5.11, Para 2 of which reads as under: 2. Reference have b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali and subsequently followed in the number of decisions referred (supra). It is seen that after declaration of law by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali, the law was amended with retrospective effect conferring jurisdiction on DRI officers as also on Commissioner of Customs, (Prev) for the purpose of issuance of Show cause notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act with retrospective effect. However, no such amendment was m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

never considered to be proper officers for demanding draw back under Rule 16. There was no retrospective amendment carried out in the said Rule 16 so as to confer jurisdiction on the DRI officer for issuance of show cause notices. Bombay High Court in the case of Tejus Proprietary concern of Tejus Rohitkumar Kapadia vs. Union of India reported as [2012 (275) ELT 175 (Bom)] has taken a very serious note of the fact that Tribunal has not given due regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stoms (Prev) Mumbai [2011 (274) ELT 71 (Tri-Mum)] wherein it was observed that the jurisdictional objection can be raised at a later stage also as it goes 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 ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aring, 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. We order accordingly. 18. Though we have set aside the impugned order on the point of jurisdiction itself but for the sake of academic interest, we w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

andar Abbas, Tehran. However, the bill of lading produced by the shipping agency during the course of investigation showed the port of discharge as Jabel ali, Dubai. Admittedly, the port of discharge on the shipping bills and the EP copy was Bandar Abbas, Tehran and as per the said statement Navdeep Goyal, the same has to be shown on the bill of lading. However, he has failed to show as to whether the port of discharge on the shipping bill and EP copy was different than the one mentioned in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nths old at the time of giving his statement, how his statement given in respect of bill of lading of the relevant exports can be held to be of any evidentiary value when admittedly the bill of lading was neither issued either by him nor during his tenure as Branch Manager of the said shipping line. Further more, the said Navdeep Goyal never appeared for cross examination inspite of adjudicating authority issuing summons for the said purpose. It is seen that adjudicating authority has observed t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eliance on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal, who was only 2-3 months old employee in the shipping line and was not even the concerned person during the period when exports took place, cannot be held to be a justifiable. It may not be out of place to mention that said bill of lading produced by the shipping line was shown to the Shri Kulbhushan Goyal. He very clearly deposed that said photocopy of shipping bill seems to be a fabricated documents. In the light of said statement of Shri Kulbhush .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtment. Further, the finished goods were also procured by the appellant from other manufacturer whose names were disclosed by them. Investigations conducted at their end also revealed that the said goods were supplied by the said manufacturers. Neither of them have agreed that supplied goods were either sub-standard or were of low value. The appellants are admittedly regular exporter of the goods in question and there has been no complaint either from their buyer or from customs authorities in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The result of cross examination of the concerned Superintendent and concerned Inspector reveals that goods were examined and found to be correct and it is only thereafter that the material was stuffed in the containers and allowed for export. In the light of result of such cross examination which has been ignored by the lower authorities 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 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ains 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Navdeep Goyal under duress of DRI showing the discharge port as Jabel Ali, Dubai. The same Shri Navdeep Goyal has supplied 3 E Ps shipping bills showing three different Iran buyers and port of discharge as Bandar Abbas. There is no explanation in the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal for different bill of lading showing Dubai as port of discharge while according to Shri Navdeep Goyal himself port of lading were prepared on the basis of EP shipping bills. Such Bill of lading produced by Navde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e not received any complaint either from their Dubai customers or from the ultimate buyers at Iran / Tehran or Egypt. Further, the report of the Consulate General that one of the Merchant trader was not in existence in Duabi was proved wrong by producing the address of said company through website. Further, there is no such report in respect of other Duabi Merchant Traders and the adjudicating authority has presumed that since the other merchant traders were dealing in the building materials etc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

self as regards the supplier of the goods and realization of the banks certificate, the non receipt of any complaint by the recipient of the goods etc. To deny export benefits on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal which has been held to be of no evidentiary value and based upon the report of the Consulate General which is neither detailed report nor co-relate the goods with the export goods, denial of draw back cannot be upheld. For the same reason, imposition of penalty on the appellants is ne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e amendment in terms of rule 16 of the Drawback Rules and thus on this account also, there was lack of jurisdiction. 28. Case has also been considered on merits for academic interest by Member (J). On such examination, merely on account of non appearance of Navdeep Goyal for cross examination his statement has not been considered even though, statement was based on records. Para 19 of the draft stay order recorded by Honble Member (J) is referred as below:- 19. As per the statement of Shri Navd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the said statement Navdeep Goyal, the same has to be shown on the bill of lading. However, he has failed to show as to whether the port of discharge on the shipping bill and EP copy was different than the one mentioned in the bill of lading in the case of the appellant. Thus, it seems to be a contrary statement made by Shri Navdeep Goyal. 29. Plea has been taken that statement of Navdeep Goyal cannot be relied as at the relevant time of export, he was not in charge. Further it is also held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rd 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent in Rule 16, declaring DRI official as proper officers under Section 2(34) for the purpose of recovery of drawback amounts erroneously granted under the aforesaid Rule 16 of the drawback Rules ADG, DRI could not have issued the show cause notice. 33. I find that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the DRI officials to issue show cause notice for recovery of drawback under Rules 16/ 16A had come up for consideration before this Tribunal in the matter of Sun Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. v. CC (Adj.) - 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sdictional fact wrongly. In our view this case cannot be applied to the present cases for the reason that DRI officers have been empowered to act as officers of Customs under Notification No. 17/2002-Cus.(N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, which reproduced below:- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) officers appointed as Customs Officers - Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.) superceded In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Customs for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (1) 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es. This Notification has been issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. 9.As regards the objection raised by the appellants for the Commissioner to adjudicate the case, it is seen that under Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, An officer of Customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under the Act on any other officer of Customs who is subordinate to him. In view of the above provisions, it is not illegal on the part of the Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Adjudicating Authority had dealt with these issues in his order. 10.In the Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Case, telephone connections of certain people were disconnected on account of the fact that the telephones were used to carry on forward trading which was illegal. In that case, while interpreting Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and Rules 421 and 422 of the Telegraph Rules, the Apex Court observed it is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ust because the DRI officer issued the Show Cause Notice no prejudice is caused to the appellants and they cannot argue that principles of natural justice have been violated because DRI officer issued the Show Cause Notice. This is an absurd 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 fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 per Rule 16-A by the jurisdictional Commissioners, Additiona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ustoms who is subordinate to him. Therefore, statutorily, it is provided that a higher Officer can perform the functions and duties of a subordinate Officer. It is by virtue of the statutory provision, the Director of Revenue Intelligence, who was appointed as Commissioner of Customs to investigate and issue show cause notice, has adjudicated the dispute regarding payment of duty draw back also. The Rule on which reliance is placed is attracted in the absence of a Notification. Once a Notificati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, how power should be exercised and the same fashion is concerned, there is no quarrel with the legal proposition. Section 5(2) of the Act specifically provides that, a higher Officer of the Customs also has the power to perform functions and duties of a lower Officer. Therefore, a person appointed under Section 4(1) of the Act. by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Act, has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of a subordinate or a lower authority and therefore, the power exercised by the Director .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ods are not got released at Dubai port. (g) Report of the Consulate General of India at Dubai (h) Documents referred in DRI s letter addressed to Senior Departmental Representative. (i) Goods are later auctioned by Dubai Customs (j) If goods are not got released at Dubai and all containers are detained and auctioned at Dubai, how parallel sets of documents including bill of ladings were prepared showing good consigned to Egypt, Tehran etc. (k) It is on record that money has come in advance throu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the units of its noticee contained in 7 containers namely Shri Kulbhushan Goyal and Ramesh Goyal, all goods (so called cycle parts) were consigned to Dubai only against parallel set of Bill of Ladings showing destination as Dubai. Details of all these containers are given in Annexure A, B & C to the show cause notice. Overseas enquiry report dated 10.12.2003 received through Consulate General of India at Dubai is a proper reliable evidence as information has been gathered from Dubai Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso relevant which makes documents received from outside India in the course of investigation as admissible evidence. 39. Appellants during their statements before customs have contended their stand that they were receiving orders from their agents in Dubai and were consigning so called cycle parts to Egypt, Iran on the basis of such orders and accordingly they were declaring in their shipping bills. In their support, they also stated that various components/wire were being purchased from variou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1, 6620 and 6619 in which the name of the shipper was M/s M.K. International Ludhiana, name of the notified party was M/s Clarion Logistics Middle East, Jebel Ali, port of discharge and place of destination was jebel Ali, no. packages were 604, gross weight was 14885 kgs net weight was 14585 kgs and container No. was CRXU-281449-4. The Noticee had further admitted having seen Bill of Lading No. LUHDXB-1612724A in respect of Shipping Bill No. 6620 in which the name of the shipper was M.K. interna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the no. of packages were 197, gross weight was 4975 kgs and net weight was 4875 kgs. He had also admitted having seen Bill of Lading No. LUH DXB-1612724 in respect of shipping bill No. 6619 in which the name of the shipper was M.K. International, name of notified party was Saeb Trade Company, Tehran, port of discharge was Bandar Abbas, place of destination was Tehran, No. of packages were 206, gross weight was 4925 kgs and net weight was 4825 kgs. He had further stated that in all the three Bil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 dest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for claiming drawback and had nothing to do with the shipping line; that he again clarified that shipping line never submitted drawback copy of shipping bill to the customs; that there were similar discrepancies in three other B/L shown to him. He also stated that the words LUH on a Bill of Lading defined the point of origin i.e. Ludhiana, JEA defined port of discharge i.e. Jebel Ali and the digits 1612724 defined the Serial No. Further, the responsibility of the shipping line was to deliver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e place of delivery in respect of the goods as mentioned in Annexure A , B & C was Dubai and not Iran and port of discharge was Jebel Ali (Dubai) and not Bandar Abbas (Tehran) as mentioned in the copies of Bill of Lading submitted by the Noticees to the Customs department for availment of drawback. This is further corroborated from the fact that the said goods were actually shipped to Dubai as is evident from the overseas enquiry report dated 10.12.2003 done in this regard. However all state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter Customs examination, all goods were consigned to Dubai for which parallel set of bill of ladings were prepared. As per Consulate Generals report at Dubai all 41 consignments containing in 12 containers including 5 consignments/shipping bills stuffed in five containers were received at Dubai port. No release of these containers were taken by non-existent importers and later all these containers were auctioned by Dubai Customs. It is on record that all these containers containing junk were d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.Monte Metals, controlled by S/Shri Kulbhushan and Ramesh Goyal of Ludhiana, under Bills of Lading No.LuhDxb 01612516,01612581,01612601,0162550a, 0162489a, 0162554a, 0162479a from ICD, Ludhiana during October and November, 2002 have been abandoned and the goods contained therein are being put up for auction by Dubai port authorities. Intelligence further indicates that the goods are junk and were consigned to building material companies such as M/s.Abbas Rustom Building Material Trading Co.LLC, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of goods and the price declared in the import bills filed before Dubai Customs; and (v) any other relevant information. A report along with documents generated during the inquiry may kindly be sent at the earliest so that we can initiate our enquiries here. In case of unavoidable delay, a line of confirmation about the containers lying at Dubai port for auction may be sent after necessary verification. Dated: 10.12.2003 Subject: Fraudulent exports by Monte Group of Companies, Ludhiana under e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12670 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 Mar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d only 31,000 (dh) which is only ₹ 3,10,000/- in Indian rupees against total value of export amounting to ₹ 1,21,49,086/- 45. Interestingly advance payment for all these containers were organized and sent to India. Commissioner has rightly pointed out in his order that these were only hawala payments as no goods were got released by non -existent buyers. 46. To confirm the DRI-s findings, further interesting facts have come on record. DRI in a letter addressed to SDR CESTAT vide thei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmitted alongwith their letter. Letter of M/s.IAL Shipping Agencies (New Delhi) Ltd. also enclosed debit notes of charges incurred which included substantial storage charges/post landing charges. Debit Invoices clearly indicated vessels name, BL No. (LdhDXB) and container No. & number of days for which charges claimed. Actually these documents were recovered from the residence of Shri Kulbhushan Goyal. 47. Perusal of Bill of Ladings enclosed with the letter clearly shows that all the contai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 = .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BL No.LUHDxB 1612724 Number of days= 267 Total charges 9449 Dhs = Rs.1,14,049/- (i) Invoice No. DN/LCL/546/2005 BL No.LUHDxB 162479A Number of days= 337 Total charges 14825 Dhs = Rs.1,78,938/- 49. Despite clear facts emerging out of investigation, appellant tried to confuse the matter by asking cross examination of Shri Navdeep Goyal Branch Manger of Shipping line. Shri Navdeep Goyal did not appear but another official namely Captain Anil Ratra, Branch Incharge M/s.IAL Shipping Line appeared. Bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 possible without their active participation. Restricting examination to 5% by showing importers at Tehran by the appellants was a link to this manipulation. 51. It also come out that no containers were got released but advance payment for each containers were received. Angle of Hawala as concluded by adjudicating authority clearly comes out. Otherwis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y them in advance, they are not concerned with the further status of the goods. The had also contended that no enquiry under FEMA is pending against them which prove that payment was not realized through Hawala. They had further contended that the export was complete the moment the goods had left the territorial limits of the Indian waters. I find no merits in any of the above contentions of the Noticees. The above contentions are applicable where the export is legal and there is a genuine purch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pose of claiming drawback. I find that the advance payments of the impugned goods were arranged through hawala channels as is apparently clear from fact that the impugned goods had neither reached the buyer in Iran nor the merchant broker in Dubai. It is self explanatory that no prudent businessman would continue making advance payments without receiving the goods in return. Thus it is clear that the Noticees had availed drawback amount of ₹ 59,66,470/- by fraudulent means by misdeclaring .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecoverable 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve rightly been put to penalties alongwith demand of erroneously claimed drawback. 53. In view of above discussion and findings, I uphold the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming the recovery of drawback under Rule of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. No interference in respect of penalties imposed on m/s.Monte International, M/s,Monte Metal and M/s.M.K. International as well as penalties imposed on Shri Kulbhushal Goal and Shri Ramesh Goyal is made. However, imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by Member (Technical) OR Whether appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs is to be allowed in view of findings that there is no jurisdiction with DRI officers to issue SCN and recovery of drawback is not sustainable on merits as held by Member (Judicial). ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The following difference of opinion has been referred to me for consideration: Whether appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs is to be rejected on the groun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore, the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. 3. As the issue of jurisdiction is a legal 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 prop .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs; It is clear from a mere look at the provision that only such officers of customs who have been assigned s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

import concerned has been affected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Act otiose in as much as the test contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions. Moreover, if the Revenue s contention that once territorial jurisdiction is conferred, the Collector of C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal Collectorate within whose jurisdiction the bills of entry or baggage declarations had been filed and the consignments had been cleared for home consumption, will have the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. 7. Thereafter Hon ble Apex Court held that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is having territorial jurisdiction but not the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under section 28 was held as not a proper officer in terms of said section. A review petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 noti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reliance placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwati Components Manufacturing Co.-2016-TIOL-178-CESTAT-DEL. I find that the said decision has been given by this Tribunal on the basis of Notification No.44/11-Cus dt.6.7.2011 wherein the amendment has been made that DRI officers are the officers to issue SCN retrospectively under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is true that the amendment has been made by inserting clause 11 to section 28 of the Act whereby all persons ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d below:- Rule 16. Repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback and interest-has been paid erroneously or the amount so paid is in excess of what the claimant is entitled to, the claimant shall, on demand by a proper officer of Customs repay the amount so paid erroneously or in excess, as the case may be, and where the claimant fails to repay the amount it shall be recovered in the manner laid down in sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). 11. I have gone t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rcular No.24/2011-Cus dated 31.5.2011 which reads as under: 2.Reference have received from the field formations for specifying the proper officer for issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of cases of export under the drawback and export promotion 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, hence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court following the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

per officer under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The said circular did not consider that the DRI officers are to be the proper officers under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 but as no retrospective amendment carried out in the said rule so far as conformation of jurisdiction by DRI officers for issuance of show cause notice is concerned, therefore, I agree with the view taken by Honble Member (Judicial) that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or value of the goods. All the consignments were examined found to be correct and the goods were assessed, thereafter let export order was issued. Further, I find that no incriminating documents found by DRI during the course of search at the residence of various partners or the officers of the appellants. The only allegation against the appellant is that the Consulate General of India at Dubai has given report dated 10.12.2003 showing that only small fraction of iron was auctioned by Dubai DHS .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version