RAJASHRI PACKERS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed the following appeals in respect of the Orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mangalore.

(2.) THE appellants are the importers of edible oils through Mangalore Port. They filed two Into Bond Bills of Entry dated 18 -2 -2003 and 6 -3 -2003 for import of crude palmolein and warehoused the same in their customs bonded warehouse. Later they filed Ex -Bond Bills of Entry for the clearance of the goods. They filed DEPB scrips and TRAs for the purpose of discharging the duty liability. The bills of entry were assessed provisionally and the goods were cleared by debiting the duty amount in the DEPB scrips in terms of Notification No. 45/2002 -Customs dated 22 -4 -2002 as amended. A detailed investigation was conducted by the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House into the issue of the above mentioned DEPB scrips. The investigations revealed that these scrips were bogus. Actually some A4 sized blank scrips having the OA numbers of the DEPB scrips produced in Mangalore were missing from the packets received from the Government of India Press, Nasik. Obviously, these missing A4 sized blank scrips have been used for forging the DEPB licence. In view of the above development, the DGFT issued a cancellation order dated 10 -9 -2003 cancelling the scrips having OA numbers 639691, 639694 and 639692. Since the DEPB scrips were forged, there was Revenue loss to the extend of Rs. 75,78,417/ -. Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants for recovery of the duty under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is a fact alleged that the appellants had paid huge consideration of Rs. 72,85,427/ - for purchase of the scrips through crossed cheques issued by the reputed banks. They submitted that they acted in bona fide manner. The Adjudicating Authority ordered that the proper officer shall finalise the provisional assessment of the bills of entry in terms of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has observed that a duty liability of Rs. 75,78,417/ - on the impugned goods was not discharged to any extent at the time of their clearance. However, he has also given a finding that there is no evidence to conclude that there was any collusion or wilful misstatement by either the importer or Shri K.S. Saravan, Manager. Hence he did not find any justification to invoke the provisions of Section 112(a) against Shri K.S. Saravan or Section 114(A) against the importer. The appellants challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner.

(3.) SHRI B.N. Gururaj, learned advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Bhatt, SDR appeared for the Revenue.