THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT H. KUMAR GADECHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad vide which he has confirmed customs duty amounting to Rs. 4,39,99,534/ - (Rupees four crore thirty nine lakh ninety nine thousand five hundred and thirty four only) against M/s. H. Kumar Gems Inc., Ahmedabad along with imposition of identical penalty upon them in terms of the provisions of Section 112a/114a of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, goods imported by the said appellant stands confiscated with a fine in lieu of confiscation to the tune of Rs. 15 crores. In addition personal penalties stand imposed upon the other appellants in terms of the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) AS per the facts on record, M/s. H. Kumar Gems Inc. imported 12 consignments of gold bars and 3 consignments of silver during the period 24 -5 -1996 to 20 -6 -1997 by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 117/94 -Cus. Dt. 27 -4 -1994. The said notification exempted gold and silver imported to India, on production of Special Import Licence (hereinafter referred to as SIL) issued in terms of Export and Import Policy, April, 1992 -March, 1997. The benefit of the said notification was extended to the appellant at the time of import, on the production of 22 SILs submitted by the appellant and the assessments were finalized accordingly.

(3.) HOWEVER , subsequently investigations were initiated by the customs and as a result, it was found that 15 SILs out of 22 SILs submitted by the said appellant were defaced and cancelled by the DGFT authorities on the request of the actual owner of the respective SILs. Though the 7 SILs were not found to be defaced or cancelled by the DGFT authorities, it was found that the last transferee of the same had not signed the transfer letters. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing to deny the benefit of the SILs and consequently the benefit of the notification in question. Such proceedings culminated into the impugned order and appealed before us.