TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold the person to whom, the instrument was issued as a person liable to Customs duty. It is necessary for the officer adjudicating the customs duty liability, to identify the importer/ person who is liable to such duty in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The present order in so far as it relates to confirmation of Customs duty jointly and severally on more than one person is accordingly, not legally sustainable. The rejection of FOB value originally assessed by the officers and comparing the value of different exporters to determine the FOB value of the main appellant - Held that: - Since we find that the original authority has not properly arrived at, the identity of the person from whom, duty demand can be confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjhi (DR) ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran All these appeals are against common impugned order dated 23.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Jodhpur). Three appellants M/s Chandrahans Brothers, M/s P.G. Foils and M/s Kasa Infra Ltd. are in appeal against demands of customs duty and of penalties. All other appellants are against imposition of penalties under various provisions of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Ms. Chandra Hans Brothers (Main Appellant) had exported 100% polyester fabrics during period 11.08.2008 to 25.10.2008 under the claim for DEPB benefit. The Revenue entertained a view that these goods which were exported were substantially over valued in order to avail inadmissible b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not allowed by the Commissioner. He held that there is no fundamental right of cross examination in adjudication proceedings. f) Denial of cross examination had affected the due process and resulted in denial of natural justice. g) The order of the original authority to recover customs duty from more than one persons/ companies, jointly or severally, is legally untenable. h) There is no concept of treating a person as deemed importer to demand customs duty. Section 28AAA was introduced in the Customs Act only w.e.f. 28.05.2012. As such prior to that date for DEPB related cases duty cannot be demanded from exporter. 4. On behalf of M/s. P.G. Foils it is contended that they have purchased DEPB scripts from Ms. Chandraha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere could be a case for negligence or inefficiency, the same cannot be ground for holding the charge of abetment in order to invite penalty under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. There is no evidence or documentary proof that the officers have knowingly abeted any illegal transaction of the exporter. 7. The other appellants contested the imposition of penalties of different amounts, imposed on them. 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels representing the appellants and the Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue. 9. The present appeals are on the main issue of over valuation of export items in order to claim ineligible DEPB benefits. First of all we noticed that the demands of Customs duty have been made under two categories. The demand of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be confirmed jointly and severally against multiple persons. We note that it is necessary for the officer adjudicating the customs duty liability, to identify the importer/ person who is liable to such duty in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The present order in so far as it relates to confirmation of Customs duty jointly and severally on more than one person is accordingly, not legally sustainable. 11. We find that the whole issue came up mainly on the ground of availing ineligible benefit of customs duty concession, it is necessary to determine such liability correctly. The main appellant strongly contested the rejection of FOB value originally assessed by the officers and comparing the value of different exporters to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s The Thar Dry Port filed appeal contesting the penalty imposed on them. It is conducted that they are appointed as custodian of ICD in Jodhpur. They have not committed any statutory or procedural violation inviting penal action. The original authority has not appreciated the factual background of the case. The original authority recorded that they have conducted in a careless manner and facilitated the export of overvalued goods. It is strongly contended that there is no evidence of the custodian acting beyond their statutory obligation with any malafide motive. 15. The Thar Dry Port have also filed another appeal against imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009. It is contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
