Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: import export code in Cbi vs Ashu Exports on 12 March, 2012Matching Fragments
g) Offence complained of or 1. u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 proved IPC and section 5 of Import Export (Control) Act, 1947.
2. u/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947
h) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
i) Date of such order 12.03.2012
j) Final Order Convicted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. By this judgement, I will dispose of the two similar and connected cases of prosecution i.e. CBI against accused M/s. Ashu Exports one bearing no.
RC 2(S)/1994/SIUIX(herein after refer to as main case) and RC 2(S)/1994/SIUX(herein after refer to as the second case).
2. Breifly stated the facts of the case bearing no. RC 2(S)/1994/SIUIX (i.e main case) are that Sh. Surat Singh, Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade filed complaint against the accused M/s. Ashu Exports and its Proprietor R.K. Malhotra u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420/468/471 IPC and section 5 of Imports and Exports Act, 1947(herein after referred to as the Act.) and substantive offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC and section 5 of Imports and Exports Act, 1947. It is stated in the complaint that the accused M/s. Ashu Exports filed an application for grant of advance license for Rs. 9,72,625/ for import of 100% cotton denim alongwith required documents, i.e, photocopy of RCMC, original treasury challan for Rs. 975/, photocopy of Export order and income tax declaration etc. The application of the accused was processed and the firm was issued advanced license no. P/K/24270741 dated 13.10.1986 with the condition that the firm shall export Jeans 15,000 pieces, long coat (Gents) 10,000 pieces for an FOB value of Rs. 16,70,000/ within a period of 9 months and this period was to begin from the date of clearance of first consignment or from the 30 days of importation of first consignment whichever is earlier. The accused firm furnished a legal agreement in pursuance to the license whereby it was agreed that the importer shall earn foreign exchange for an FOB value of Rs. 16,70,000/ and on failure the importer shall be liable to pay custom duty with interest of 18% from the date of import. The import documents were received from foreign supplier M/s. Miralka Enterprises (HK) Ltd. As required amount was deposited in Indian currency by the accusd M/s. Ashu Exports in Andhra Bank and the import documents after having received from the said Bank were handed over to M/s. Vinod. S. Mehta & Co., 6, Mehta Bldg, 26, Calicut Street, Bombay38 alongwith the license and DEEC Book. M/s. Vinod. S. Mehta & Co. filed documents for clearance of the goods and after getting the material cleared, stored the same in the godown of M/s. Thakkar Warehousing Agency. M/s. Thakkar Warehousing Agency sent the said material to M/s. Sharda Trading Co. for storage. Some of the balance material was stated to be sent to the godown of Gurugovind Industrial Estate, Goregaon, Bombay, Maharashtra. It is further stated that this material was transported through M/s. New Safe Carriers but never reached Delhi and was illegally disposed of by selling in open market. It is further stated that the accused no. 2 R.K. Malhotra while applying for the license has submitted false export order which was prepared by himself in the name of M/s. Star Enterprises, 1149, Washington Avenue, Washington Townshi, West Wood, New Jersey, U.S.A. Similarly, another advance license no. P/K/3148753 dated 23.04.1986 was also obtained for import of Brass scrap for an amount of Rs. 9,80,000/ and a false export order purported to have been issued by M/s. Exotica, Bon68, Austin, U.S.A filed alongwith the application for advance license. The advance licese for export of 70 M.T. Of Brass Artware for an FOB value of Rs. 20,00,000/ within a period of 9 months and it will begin from the date of clearance of first consignment or from 30 days of importation of first consignment whichever is earlier. The requisite amount was again deposited in the Andhra Bank and the import documents were released for clearance of the brass scrap and after receiving the import documents the same were handed over to CHA Firm M/s. Sh. Sainath Shipping Corp at Bombay and the goods, i.e, brass scrap were received and were sent to Delhi through M/s. Kay Cess Carriers, Bombay but were never received in Delhi and were disposed off illegally.
3. Again, another license no. P/K/2427033 dated 03.10.1986 for import of brass scrap was obtained. The condition in the license were also similiar that importer was to export 49 M.T. Brass Artware for an FOB value of Rs. 14,40,000/ within a period of 9 months. The goods against this license were also cleared by M/s. Sai Nath Shipping Corp. but never reached Delhi and thus were presumed to have been disposed off by the accused firm. Though the goods in pursuance to the above three licenses were imported but the correspondence export was never made by the accused and there were no entries in export books and it was thus alleged that the accused has committed an offence u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and section 5 of Import Export (Control) Act, 1947.
5. In the main case, i.e, RC 2(S)/1994/SIUIX Charges u/s 120B of IPC r/w 420/468/471 IPC and further r/w section 5 of Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and substantive offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC as well as U/s 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 were framed against the accused on 22.05.2006 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In the second case, i.e, RC 2(S)/1994/SIUX charges u/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 were framed against the accused on 22.05.2006 to which also he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.