DEENDAYAL DIDWANIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above batch of appeals arising out of three separate adjudication orders involve similar issues and are hence heard together and is posed of by this common order.

(2.) The first group of appeals Nos. C/171, 172, 123 to 126 and 175/97 arise out of order -in -original dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive); the second group of appeals, viz. appeal Nos. C/1006 to 1008/98 arise out of order dated 15.7.1998 of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) and appeal No. C/36/99 arises out of order dated 11.8.1998 of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication). In the first order, a duty demand of Rs. 1,59,40,455/ - has been confirmed against Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Kumar Didwania, holding them to be de facto importers of copper ingots/wire bars and brass scrap cleared against advance licence and DEFC books and disposed of in local market instead of utilization thereof in the manufacture of final products for export, resulting in contravention of the conditions of notification 203/92 -Cus, and penalties of the following amounts inter alia have been imposed under Section 112 of of the Customs Act on the following persons:

(3.) In the first group of appeals, the case of the department is that imports of copper ingots, wire bar and brass scrap duty free under DEEC scheme against advance licence were by M/s. India Associates Pvt. Ltd. Which was a fictitious company with no office or factory premises and no means or capacity for manufacture of end products of copper wire and brass extruded solid section from the imported material; that they obtained advance licence and DEEC books on the strength of fabricated documents and false information given on the instructions of Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Didwania and therefore Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Didwania were able to clear duty free eight consignment of copper ingots/wires and bars and five consignments of brass scrap from Nhava Sheva pv and Mumbai during the years 1994 and 1995. It is for this reason that duty demand has been confirmed against the father and son duo and penalties imposed on them as well as others connected with such import.