Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Sh G.V. Shankara Narayana, Bangalore vs Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore on 12 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(77)ECC367, 2001(133)ELT452(TRI-BANG)
ORDER
Shri S.S. Sekhon
1. Pursuant to an intelligence, that a Company M/s Kevin Ltd. have indulged in export of goods by mis-declaration of the description and value and have sold imported goods cleared duty free for the purpose of job-working and re-export on enhanced FOB value and claimed irregular drawback, Enquiries were launched Consignments under export intercepted and those already exported earlier were enquired into. A Show cause Notice was issued to M/s Kevin Ltd., it's Managing Director and the present appellant & Others. The Commissioner after holding the hearing, passed an order...
i) Confiscating the seized goods under provisions of section 113(d)read with Section 111(o) & 110(b) of the Customs Act 1962.
ii) Demanded duty of Rs 2,32,132/- on Raw Mulbery Silk imported duty free and cleared under Notification 81/95 Cus dated 31.03.95 supported by notification 32/97 cus dated 1.4.97 read with Customs (IGCDRMEG) Rules 1996 along with interest under Section 28 AB.
iii) A penalty of Rs10 lakhs under Section 114(1) Custom Act was imposed on M/s KEVIN Ltd.,
iv) Rs 6,20,290/- was demanded being draw-back paid to M/s Kevin Ltd., together with interest under the provisions of Rule 16 & 16 A of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules 1995 read with Section 75(2) of the Customs Act 1962.
v) A penalty of Rs 2,32,132/- was imposed on M/s Kevin Ltd., under Section 114.
vi) Maruthi Van under Seizure was ordered to be confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on fine of Rs10,000/-
vii) A penalty of Rs 5,000/- was imposed on Smt S. Mahalakshmi, Managing Director of M/s Kevin Ltd., under Section 114(i) and 114(iii) and 112(a) of the Customs act 1962.
viii) A penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana, (Appellant herein) of M/s Kiven Ltd., under the provisions of Section 114(1); 114(iii) and 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962.
2. The present appellant, i.e. Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana, complied with the pre-deposit order, the other appellants did not. Therefore the appeal of Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana is taken up for final decision. After hearing Shri Laxminarayan, Advocate for the appellants and the DR for the revenue and considering the matter we find...
(a) The Commissioner, as regards the present appellant found:
"There is a proposal to impose penalty on Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana under the provisions of Section 114(1), 114(iii) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana in his reply dated 26.07.99 has requested for treating the reply filed by the company to be read as part and parcel of his reply. He has also cited certain case Laws and contended that the present proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction. I have already considered all the submissions, including the issue relating to the jurisdiction which has already been discussed at length in the preceding paragraphs and hence not repeated herein again. I have also gone through the statements of Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana recorded on various dates. I notice that Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana had clearly admitted the charges about the sale of duty free imported goods in the open market, substitution of goods manufactured out of old and used defective fabrics, mis-declaration of value in the export consignment etc., Therefore, Have no hesitation to hold that Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana had acted deliberately in defiance of Law and is found to be guilty of contumacious and dishonest conduct as his acts were in conscious disregard of the statutory obligations. Therefore, Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana is liable to penalty under provisions of Section 114(1), 114(iii) and 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962."
(b) The appellant has urged, the ground of "Financial Hardship" before us and in the appeal has taken the grounds
i) The goods were imported in lots, and one consignments has been fully exported.
ii) Power to adjudicate was vested under the Notification on the Asstt Commissioner and the adjudication by the Commissioner has denied him an opportunity of appeal before Commissioner(Appeals).
iii) The provisions of notification and the submissions were not appreciated by the Commissioner including the fact that Bond was executed under customs (Import of Goods at Confessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 1996 (Referred t o as Customs (IGCDRMEG) rules 1996 herein) which thereunder, prescribe the mode of recovery.
iv) The goods under export were not dutiable, penalty could not therefore be imposed on presumptions and assumptions and relied on 1978(ELT)172(SC).
(C) We find that the Commissioner had considered the very same grounds urged before us and has dealt with them in extension, in para 54,55,56,57,58 and in para 59 of the impugned order, came to a conclusion about the willful mis-statement of M/s Kiven Ltd., in as much as they unauthorisedly sold the imparted SILK which was not permissible. Thereafter relying of Supreme Court decision in Shashank Foods (P) Ltd. 1996 (86) ELT 626 (SC), came to the liabilities as determined by him. We find no challenge, to these findings of the Adjudicator before us. We do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at.
(d) The facts of the case, clearly reveal the roles the KING PIN, in committing the acts of violations of the Customs Act by the appellant before us, who has conducted the affairs of M/s Kevin Ltd., a family concern of h is mother, his wife and others Sisters-in-Law, inducing the semi-literate Sister-in-Law, to act as a Managing Director on paper only, get signatures on all kinds of paper, by misusing her trust and faith in the appellant. Thus also causing a Revenue evasion of large amount of duties and attracting a visit of huge liability of duty and penalties on the family concern i.e. M/s Kevin Ltd., He deserves no leniency whatsoever.
(e) Financial and economic requirements by obtaining unmerited Drawback payments as admitted by the appellant in his statements, cannot be a reason to reduce the penalty or justification to violate the Customs Law with the impunity as exhibited in this case. We find no case for reduction of the penalty as pleaded by the learned Advocate..
3. In view of our findings, the penalties imposed on him are adequate and confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
( Pronounced in open court On)