M.L. CHANDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant states that she has obtained instructions. Appellant had deposited Rs. 1 lac and is ready and willing to deposit another amount of Rs. 1 lac. Penalty of Rs. 3 lac was imposed on the appellant which has been upheld by the Tribunal in their order dated 20th September, 2012. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed: -

(2.) AS per the findings recorded by the Tribunal, M/s. Amber Traders Company and M/s. Zigma International were involved in attempting fraudulent exports to claim duty drawbacks. The declared value of the consignments of M/s. Amber Traders Company was Rs. 44,49,200/ -, but its actual value was only Rs. 2,10,000/ -. On examination of the consignments, it was found that what was actually being exported was old lady dresses fabricated out of worn fabric. These were not properly stitched and were of inferior quality and were unfit for commercial sale. Thus, there was misdeclaration of goods and over -valuation to make undue gain under the Duty Free Relinquishment Certificate Scheme (DFRC). To this extent, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are clear and categorical and do not require any interference. There was misdeclaration of the export goods by M/s. Amber Traders Company. M/s. Amber Traders Company had not filed any appeal against the Order -in -Original before the Tribunal and they are not the appellant before us.

(3.) IN the order written by the judicial member, there was no reference to the retraction made by M.L. Chandra on 5th October, 2004. In the order written by the Technical Member, this aspect has been noticed and it is recorded that the case and alibi of M.L. Chandra was different. M.L. Chandra had argued that the application filed with DGFT and the bank account designated to get export proceeds did not show his photograph. There was nothing on record to show link between M.L. Chandra and M/s. Amber Traders Company except for the statement dated 31st January, 2004, which was retracted on 5th February, 2004.