VINOD KUMAR JATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Kumar Jatia by this writ petition has challenged order dated 22nd July, 1996 passed by the Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce confirming order dated 13th January, 1992 passed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports under Section 4 M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 as amended by Imports and Exports (Control) (Amendment) Act, 1976. The appellate order however reduced the quantum of penalty imposed vide order dated 13th January, 1992 from Rs.75 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have also not filed any counter affidavit.

(3.) CONTROLLER of Imports and Exports is a detailed order and elucidates the facts. M/s Hiren Metal Works were given advance licence No.P/L/1499535 and DEEC Book No.018694 dated 1st May, 1989 for import of 1875 metric tons of second/defective/circles cuttings for CIF value of Rs.1,14,37,500/ . The said licence was given under the DEEC scheme and entailed an obligation to export Ghamelas of value of Rs.1.80 crores. M/s Hiren Metal Works had imported the entire quantity under the licence by way of 13 consignments. 12 consignments were cleared by the custom authorities without payment of duty and the 13th consignment of 89 metric tons was pending clearance when investigations began. It was learnt that 12 earlier consignments had been sold by M/s Hiren Metal Works in the market for monetary consideration. Statements of Ramesh R. Desai, trustee of M/s Hiren Metal Works, was recorded under section 108 of the C Act wherein he had accepted that the consignments had been sold in the market. Ramesh R. Desai did not retract the said statement. Investigations revealed that the said firm had never exported in the past and did not have machinery to manufacture the product, which was to be exported. The factory itself was not operational and was closed. Therefore, there is no doubt, it has to be accepted and indeed it is not questioned by the petitioner before us that all goods imported under the DEEC scheme had been diverted and sold in the market. The question raised is whether there is any material or evidence to show and prove involvement of the petitioner in the said import or sale of the imported cold rolled sheets. Order dated 13th January, 1992 records and mentions that