Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2|Page C/10704-10707/2023-DB consequently wrong MEIS benefits. During the course of investigation, the Additional Director General Foreign Trade, DGFT, New Delhi vide letter F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-55(INT-09)/2020 dated 15/7/2021 was requested to cancel/suspend/restrict the MEIS Scrips/licenses issued to M/s. FASHION ACCESSORIES (FA for short hereinafter) by the department to the extent of misuse of such MEIS Scrips/licenses by mis-classification of their export goods in contravention of the relevant provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, DGFT, New Delhi too issued Show Cause Notice bearing F. No. 5/MISC-1/ AM22/EPS-I/LA dated 25/8 / 2021 under Section, 9, 11(2), 11(3) read with Section 13, 14 and 17 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 to M/s. FASHION ACCESSORIES which was adjudicated vide DGFT order dated 12.04.2023 against the party, but it is stated to have been reversed in appeal under that Act.

(xiii) With regard to penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, the noticee relied upon the recent judgement pronounced in M / s Vedika Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [Customs Appeal No. 75085 of 2017] on 26 June 2023, wherein it was held that the penalties under Section 114 and 114AA cannot be imposed on the appellant company and its Director separately for the same offence where DGFT has already initiated action and imposed a penalty for the same offence. I find that DGFT initiated action for cancellation of License / Scrips issued by them, however, the present case is related to mis-classification of exported goods and recovery of Customs Duty under Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, both DGFT and Customs being different entities adjudicating for differing violations, the judgment cited is not applicable for the present case.

(v) Further, M/s. FASHION ACCESSORIES obtained MEIS Scrips fraudulently by way of willful mis-statement and suppression of facts. I find that M / s .FA had willfully mis- declared the description of goods exported, in Form ANF-3B submitted before the DGFT, whereas they were aware of the true classification of the goods. Further, they suppressed the dubious classification adopted by the mselves and tried to evade custom duty. By way of mis-classification of the goods, they obtained MEIS scrips to avail higher amount of incentive which were utilized by them for discharging liability; therefore, I find M / s FA liable for penalty under Section 114AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and has been correctly imposed upon them.

(i) It is alleged in the show cause notice that M / s Fashion Accessories obtained the MEIS scrips fraudulently by way of mis-classification of their goods at the time of export in order to avail higher amount of incentive. The scrips so obtained were further sold/transferred to others and utilized by them by debiting such scrips at the time of import. I find that the allegation made against M / s FA have already been proved and discussed in para supra and as per Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, custom duty to the tune of Rs. 3, 77 ,53,455/ is required to be recovered from them along with interest.