TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner who is also a victim of the fraud - petition allowed - recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner is dropped - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2013 and C.M. Application No. 552 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2014 - Manmohan, J. Ms. Shikha Sapra, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Kamal Nijhawan, SSC, Vivek Sharma and Imran Ahmad Abbasi, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 1 Authorities for quashing recovery proceedings qua the petitioner initiated under impugned Recovery Notices dated 15-12-2012 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fraud. 5. The DRI in its investigation did not find any fault with the conduct of the petitioner. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs vide order dated 29th June, 2005 adjudicated the show cause notice wherein he also did not return any finding or attribute any misdemeanour on the part of the petitioner. In fact, a categorical finding was given that Mr. A.K. Singh in the guise of petitioner s firm M/s. Vikas Exports perpetrated the fraud on the Revenue. 7. Vide the said order, penalty was imposed upon Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. A.S. Kotwal, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce. In addition, recovery of drawback amount totalling to ₹ 26,54,929/- and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed on petitioner s proprietary firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seems to bear the date 28th September, 1997. After perusing the original envelope as well as IEC Code, the same have been returned to learned counsel for petitioner. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is a case of identity theft and, therefore, petitioner is not liable for alleged actions of Mr. A.K. Singh and others. 14. In the opinion of this Court, learned counsel for petitioner has rightly pointed out that both in the investigation by DRI as well as the Order-in-Original there is no finding against the petitioner. The operative portion of the Order-in-Original reads as under :- A.K. Singh defrauded the Government revenue through export of highly overvalued ready-made garments in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|