Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (10) TMI 63

..... t the appellants have traded and dealt with forged duty credit scrips - HELD THAT:- As far as the initiation of fresh proceedings are concerned, we are of the considered opinion that there is no bar to initiate present proceedings by issuing show cause notice on the basis of a fresh investigation report received from DRI which involved eight new forged scrips which were not part of the offence report in earlier suspension and revocation of proceedings of custom broker license. The facts in the present case is almost identical and charges against CB in this case are also same as in the case of HLPL GLOBAL LOGISTIC PVT. LTD VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2019 (2) TMI 508 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and these proceedings also arise out of the investigation report received from the DRI on the same forged scrips which were part of the said final order dated 01/02/2019. The revocation of CB license and imposition of penalty against the customs broker M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. have been quashed. The proceedings against the present appellant also cannot sustain in the present case - Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 51282 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51280/2019 - 1-10-2019 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, ME .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... nd thus evaded the applicable customs duties to the tune of ₹ 1,11,98,374/- during the period November 2012 to November 2013. That scrutiny revealed that M/s HLPL Global Logistic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Alok Mehra (the appellant) and M/s A.P. Enterprises, all customs brokers, had been engaged in trading of forged duty credit scrips/licenses. The fact of trading of licenses was admitted by the appellant before DRI and it appeared that the CB had sold licenses which were not existing; that the CB had failed to verify the details of the license and also did not produce the hard copy of the said licenses; that the aforementioned duty credit scrips/licenses, were utilized by various firms (importers) for debiting a total customs duty amount of ₹ 14,15,43,911/- against a total number of 1331 bills of entry filed by various customs brokers and out of which the appellant had used such fraudulent scrips for effecting clearances of 37 bills of entry involving a customs duty of ₹ 1,11,98,374/-; that these duty credit scrips were purchased by the appellant and the same were used by them by debiting customs duties on behalf of various importers who were their clients and that the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... e fictitious firms and further as the invoices issued by the aforesaid trading firms reveal same pattern and signatory, it emerged to the investigating agency that all the customs brokers involved have actively/passively entered into same conspiracy for use of forged scrips for payment of customs duty. The custom brokers did not obtain authorization from their clients for use of the duty credit scrips; custom brokers failed to verify the genuineness of the duty credit scrips with the ulterior motive to cause unlawful gains to themselves by dishonest means; the CB was fully aware that the condition of producing the original scrip to the custom officer at the time of duty debit is the most important condition under Notification No. 95/2009-CUS dated 11/09/2009 and that in spite of being aware that Shri Lalit Jain did not possess the original copies of the scrips and in spite of not having seen the copy of the said licenses himself, he did not advise the importers properly before making duty debit nor did he inform the custom officers about the non-availability of original scrips and, therefore, the CB (appellant) failed to perform the duties as prescribed under Regulation 11 (d) of t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... of the importers in violation of the CBLR, 2013. That the CB was having knowledge of the forged scrips. He had utilized these scrips to take undue benefits as he used to recover the duty forgone from the importers. The CB has neither challenged this aspect and nor submitted any clarification in his submissions. On the basis of these facts it was found that the CB had violated provisions of Regulation 11 (d) and 11 (e) of the CBLR. 5. It is a matter of record that the appellant s license was suspended vide suspension order dated 19/05/2016 but the suspension was revoked by order dated 30/01/2017 passed by the Commissioner in under directions vide order dated 04/12/2016 of this CESTAT Delhi to take a final decision within one month if the suspension was not already revoked. The Commissioner revoked the suspension on the ground that nine months had already been passed but the final investigation report or show cause notice in the matter had not been received from the investigating agency. And moreover, since almost three years had already been passed when the imports took place in this case, there was no ground for immediate action against the CB. Further, as the investigation in the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... procured 11 licenses mentioned in the show cause notice from the non-existent/fake firms and had never ascertained the existence of the license trading firms; that he had never met the owner/proprietor/concerned person of the license trading firm and had also never seen the hard copy of the said duty credit scrips before purchase and its utilization for payment of customs duty; that it was accepted by the CB (appellant) that mandatory condition prescribed in the relevant custom notification for debit of license before clearance of goods could not be fulfilled in absence of hard copies of the said licenses/duty credit scrips; that the CB (appellant) failed to produce any document to confirm that he had purchased the license from M/s Ribs Exim Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and made payment as per the direction of Shri Lalit Jain of M/s Ribs Exim Consultants Pvt. Ltd. or his staff; that the CB could have verified the genuineness of the licenses/duty credit scrips from the DGFT website which they failed to do and, therefore, the CB has knowingly, willfully and deliberately suppressed the fact from the custom officer that the said duty credit scrips were fake/forged and also not advised their .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... (1) the show cause notice was required to be issued within 90 days of receipt of first offence report dated 28/03/2016, therefore, the show cause notice dated 30/08/2017 was clearly time barred. In this regard they have relied upon the decision in the case of Saro International Freight System - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 289 (Mad.) and Overseas Air Cargo Services - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 119 (Del.). He has also assailed the impugned order for reopening of the case for same offence as it amounted to double jeopardy. He has further argued that there was no violation of Regulation 11 (d) as the Licenses were already registered in EDI by the Custom Officers and as the debiting of duty in the licenses were done by the ACES/EDI system and there was no requirement ot produce physical copy of the License. That the appellant had purchased the license after paying the money at an intermediate stage after these were duly registered in the EDI system by the custom authorities and were being used regularly. Therefore fraud in this case if had happened, it has happened at the time of registration and not at the time of utilization for duty payment. The license holders M/s Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd., and others .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... is of a fresh investigation report received from DRI which involved eight new forged scrips which were not part of the offence report in earlier suspension and revocation of proceedings of custom broker license. We have examined final order No. 50145 of 2019 dated 01/02/2019 produced by the learned Counsel of the appellant. We find that the facts in the present case is almost identical and charges against CB in this case are also same as in the case of HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and these proceedings also arise out of the investigation report received from the DRI on the same forged scrips which were part of the said final order dated 01/02/2019. The revocation of CB license and imposition of penalty against the customs broker M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. have been quashed with the following observations :- 23. We find that Ld. Commissioner has not dealt with the submissions made by the appellant and followed the enquiry report in this case. It is evident from the records of the case that the appellants have obtained the duty free licence from M/s Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. or through a broker Mr. Lalit Jain and utilised the same towards the payment of Customs duty for the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ustoms at the time of clearance of import consignment may not be prime-facie considered such a grave offence, it was concluded that the continuation of suspension was not warranted. The said order of the Commissioner of Customs (General) refers to the statement made by Mr Ramesh Chadha, proprietor of M/s Kirti Cargo where he spoke of utilization of the scripts for payment of customs duty in the Bills of Entry filed on behalf of M/s Shyama Corporation. He stated that "the details were provided by Mr Divakar Sharma, his G-Card holder". This aspect of the matter does not find mention in the grounds of detention in case of the Detenue. 33. In view of the above order of the Commissioner of Customs, it becomes clear that it is not a simple case where the Detenue could have just hacked into the EDI System of Customs and tampered with the details the licenses, as is alleged. Unless the officers of the Customs Department were themselves involved, which angle is still under investigation, it is difficult to accept that the Detenue was the one who was involved in the racket of tampering with the licenses. Further, co-accused Mr Vinod Kumar Pathror is still said to be a PO . 11. Sinc .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||