CRYSTAL TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the Miscellaneous Petitions for stay was posted for hearing, the grounds to be considered for disposal of the stay petitions, as well as the writ appeals are going to be the same, we dispose of the writ appeals themselves with the consent of the parties.

(2.) In all the writ petitions, the challenge was to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. Under the show cause notice, it was alleged that there were serious fraud played in respect of DEPB licences issued by the DGFT, based on which the appellants had the benefit of concessional duty. The appellants were called upon to show cause as to why the licence themselves should not be cancelled and consequently the goods imported and cleared by them duty free by using fake and forged DEPB licences and TRAs should not be treated as liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) read with 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the demand foe the duty which was foregone under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 apart from the levy of interest and penalty.

(3.) The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Judge by the order impugned in these writ appeals. The learned Judge by relying upon the decision of this Court reported in, (Madura Coats Limited v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Madurai, 2008 227 ELT 355) took the view that the report cannot be accepted on the basis of an affidavit and counter affidavit to resolve the disputed questions of fact. The learned Judge therefore dismissed the writ petitions and directed the appellants to furnish their explanation within four weeks to the impugned show cause notice. The respondents were also directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Liberty was also given to the appellants to raise the plea of limitation and it is for the respondents to deal with all the points in accordance with law.