TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit earned by any exporter and certified by the Director-General of Foreign Trade (in short, DGFT) under the Duty Exemption Pass Book (in short, DEPB) Scheme in terms of the relevant provisions of Exim Policy 1997-2002. Post-export DEPB certificates/scrips/licences issued by the DGFT to an exporter were transferable in the market and a transferee-importer was entitled, under the above Notification, to utilise the certified credit for paying basic customs duty and surcharge on imports of non-restricted items of raw materials. The imports made by the appellants without payment of duty were on the strength of four DEPB scrips procured from the market. In early 2000, the Customs authorities, through investigation, found the DEPB scrips to be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. and transferred in favour of the appellants. (iii) No. 0210004698, dated 14-7-99 issued in the name of M/s. S.B. Agro (India) Ltd. and transferred in favour of the appellants. (iv) No. 0210005770, dated 3-9-99 issued in the name of M/s. S.B. Agro (India) Ltd. and transferred in favour of the appellants. (b) The above licences were forged and fake as confirmed by M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and M/s. S.B. Agro (India) Ltd. as also by the DGFT. (c) The duty exemption availed under Notification No. 34/97 on the strength of the above forged and fake licences is a nullity in law and the entire duty with interest is payable by the appellants. (d) As the licences had not been issued at all by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banks. But further enquiries made with reference to the addresses of these two firms as seen in the bank records proved that the firms did not exist at such addresses. None of these investigative findings has been challenged by the appellants. We, therefore, uphold ld. Commissioner's finding that the licences were forged and fake. 5.The appellants' case now is that the DEPB scrips were duly verified and endorsed by the proper officer of Customs in accordance with the established procedure and, therefore, the benefit of credit of duty taken in good faith by the appellants on the strength of the scrips cannot be denied to them. They have availed the benefit under Notification No. 34/97, in the manner prescribed by law and any denial of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority's findings noted at (c), (d) and (e) in Para 3 above. The main issue which we have to examine in the case is as to whether the benefit of exemption availed by the appellants under Notification No. 34/97 on the strength of fake DEPB scrips should be held to be admissible to them by reason of the fact that the proper officer of Customs verified and endorsed the scrips. We have examined this issue. A fake document is ab initio unlawful and void. Any amount of official action upon such a document cannot sanctify it or otherwise make it lawful. Such a document cannot give rise to any right or benefit in law. This is the legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla Others, 2001 (4) SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight or benefit could accrue from the null and void "licences". In other words, no credit of duty was available to the appellants under the forged DEPB scrips. The paramount condition under Notification No. 34/97 remained unfulfilled and consequently the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the notification. The appellants were liable to pay duty on the imported goods. The Commissioner's order confirming the demand of duty is legally correct and hence cannot be interfered with. 9.All the decisions cited by the Counsel are distinguishable. In none of those cases did any statutory authority act upon any forged document so as to enable any person to derive any benefit thereunder. In particular, we note that, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the appellants cannot even claim the sympathy of a court of equity as they were defrauding the Revenue by availing credit under forged documents. 10.In the SCNs, there was a proposal under Section 124 of the Customs Act to confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Act. The adjudicating authority has found the goods liable to such confiscation. We do agree with this finding as we have found that the paramount condition under the notification was not fulfilled by the importer. However, we note, the adjudicating authority has not examined under Section 125 the question whether the goods were redeemable on payment of a fine. 11.Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty equal to duty on the appellants under Section 114A "having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
