Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: import export code number in Cbi vs . Ya-Mut-Ioon Etc. on 15 April, 2014Matching Fragments
9. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments RC NO.6(E)/95; CBI/SIUVIII/ND; U/s 120B r/w 420/471 IPC DOD: 15.04.2014 advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
10. PW1 Sh A.K.M Chakanka, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi is the complainant in the case. He deposed that in the year 1995, he was posted as Dy Director General of Foreign Trade in DGFT headquarters looking after enforcement work. On 11.12.95, he has sent a complaint to the CBI which is Ex.PW1/A. He has proved the annexures filed along with application form of M/s Ya-Mut-Ioon which is Ex.PW1/B and other documents filed along with application for quantity based advance licence i.e treasury challan Ex.PW1/C, code number of import export Ex.PW1/D, CA certificate Ex.PW1/E RCMC certificate, another RCMC certificate Ex.PW1/G, declaration Ex.PW1/H, disclaimer certificate Ex.PW1/I, supporting manufacturing certificate is Ex.PW1/J, purchase order Ex.PW1/K, forwarding letter Ex.PW1/L, authorization letter Ex.PW1/M. The application was processed and approved for quantity based advance licence No. P/K/2320629 Ex.PW1/N. Office copy of licence is Ex.PW1/0. Same was sent to party vide office letter Ex.PW1/P under the signature of Sh R.K Sharma. The conditions attached to the license are Ex.PW1/Q and PW1/R. The party vide their letter dated 5.10.93 submitted the LUT for operating the licence is Ex.PW1/S. While processing it was found that name of CA is not appearing in the CA book for 1991-92. After inquiry, it was decidedto accept the LUT to the firm. LUT has been proved as Ex.PW1/T. Sh Raj Kumar is authorized nominee of the firm received the licence No. P/K/2320629 and DEEC No. 026630/PY1 & 2 and its receipt is Ex.PW1/U. He has further stated that inquiry was caused to ascertain the genuineness of applicant firm and authenticity of the documents furnished by the firm. He proved the letter dated 12.08.94 Ex.PW1/V vide which Manager, PNB, Moradabad was requested by Sh H.L Aswal to confirm the foreign exchange earned by the applicant firm. The reply receipt from the bank is Ex.PW1/W stating that there was no transaction in the account of the firm and account was RC NO.6(E)/95; CBI/SIUVIII/ND; U/s 120B r/w 420/471 IPC DOD: 15.04.2014 inoperative. Similarly letter was sent to United Bank of India under the signature of Sh Jagan Nath Controller which is Ex.PW1/X. Reply of the bank is Ex.PW1/Y. He proved the seizure memo vide which the documents were handed over to CBI as Ex.PW1/Z. For sending the information Ex.PW1/A, he has seen the documents i.e application for quantity based advance licnece Ex.PW1/1, treasury challan Ex.PW1/2 in duplicate, I.E code No. PW1/3, C.A certificate Ex.PW1/4, RCMC Ex.PW1/5, another RCMC Ex.PW1/6, declaration Ex.W1/7, disclaimer certificate Ex.PW1/8, supporting manufacturing certificate is Ex.PW1/9, purchase order Ex.PW1/10, forwarding letter of the application Ex.PW1/11 and authorization letter Ex.PW1/12. The application was processed vide note sheet Ex.PW1/13 and the issue of licence was approved on 15.09.93 by Sh R.K Sharma, Asstt. Director General. Consequently, licence No. P/K/2320628 under the signature of Sh R.K Sharma was issued to the accused firm through forwarding letter Ex.PW1/14, Office copy of licence is Ex.PW1/15. He further proved the gate passes issued in the name of accused Syed Ahmed Khan as Ex.PW1/16 to Ex.PW1/18 who pursued the applications. The licence was issued under the conditions mentioned in the back of licence. The conditions are Ex.PW1/19 and Ex.PW1/20. In order to make licence operative, LUT was executed between the applicant firm and the licencing authority. The same is Ex. PW1/21. The receipt of licence is Ex.PW1/22 and authorization letter is Ex.PW1/23.