2017 (7) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lated values for obtaining excess drawback fraudulently. On examination, it emerged that against shipping bill quantity of 900 cartons, only 615 cartons were physically available and that against total declared quantity of 1,29,600 numbers of cotton knitted T-Shirts, actual quantity was only 88,560 numbers. Vide a letter dt. 19.10.2005, respondent informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) that due to oversight they had despatched wrong consignment of lower quality T-Shirts which was supposed to be shipped to Mozambia and requested for shutout of entire cargo of 615 cartons. Exporter vide another letter dt. 26.12.2005 sought permission to effect shipment to the same buyer by reducing the value of the goods to US$ 1.00 per pi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which were of inferior quality by over invoicing the value of the goods as well as mis-declaring the quantity of the goods and tried to claim a higher amount of ineligible drawback. The goods have, therefore, become liable to confiscation under Section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Though the show cause notice proposes confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, the adjudicating authority has not passed any order on the goods taking into consideration the fact that the goods have been permitted to be exported for a lower value. The adjudicating authority should have confiscated the goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act and imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Act. ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wrong declarations were made with respect to quantity and value of the goods with the sole purpose to obtain huge amount of ineligible drawback. Lower authority has further held that it is conclusively proved that the goods were willfully and intentionally misdeclared with the sole view to gain ineligible amount of drawback. He has also found that Shri M.P.S. Bharara M.D of the respondent as also Shri N. Saravanan, Shri Avinash Maheswari who played active role in the whole matter and are hence liable for penal action, based on which conclusion only the penalties indicated herein above have been imposed on these persons. He has also dismissed the defence of the respondents and has found, in para-33 of the order that the entire story of mix .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X