Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

▪ 09.11.2009: Bank of one Rudra Prasad Mondal certified for issuance of IEC code by DGFT which shows Sri Mondal was in export & import business from the year 2009 in absence of the appellant.

▪ Appellant joined in the department after his probation in 2011.

▪ 17.07.2015: Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued to four exporters including Sri, Rudra Prasad Mondal for non-fulfilment of Draw Back Rules.

▪ 09.10.2015: Original Authority confirmed demand of two exporters including Rudra Prasad Mondal.

▪ 10.01.2018: On same set of facts SCNs were issued to those four exporters including Sri, Rudra Prasad Mondal, where the Appellant is co- noticee.

▪ 05.06.2020: Impugned Orders passed, ignoring the recovery process of 2015.

Appeal No(s).: C/75368,75369,75370,76038/2025-DB

6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is 2009 batch IRS officer and joined in the year 2011 after probation period whereas Sri Rudra Prasad Mondal got his IEC code from DGFT as exporter and engaged in the export & import business from 2009 when the appellant was not even born in the Department. Hence, it is contended that the claim of DRI and finding of subsequent adjudicating authority that the present appellant was involved in export by forming a syndicate with Rudra Prasad Mondal and other exporters is far from reality and meant to mislead recovery process of the Revenue aiming to extend un-due favour to the said defaulter exporters at the cost of National Exchequer. He argues that no reasonable person can believe that the adjudicating authority was not aware of the fact that the so-called DVD was in broken condition and that the said DRI officers purposefully excluded the concerned bank officers from the investigation on receipt and withdrawal of the Draw Back amount by Rudra Prasad Mondal and others by putting their valid signatures, opening of bank account etc. 6.1. He submits that the adjudicating authority ignored the role of proper officers of Customs and provisions of section 50 & 51 of the Act, on clearance of exported goods and the declarations / Letter of Under taking required under the statute only to confuse official recovery process of Revenue; that conclusion of the adjudicating authority basically relies on conspiracy theory of three departmental officers namely Shri Vikash Kumar (the Appellant herein), Sri Sandeep Kumar Dixit (The then Senior Intelligent Officer (SIO) of DRI) and Shri Kislay (The then Inspector) by referring to one so-called broken DVD and retracted statement of one private person Appeal No(s).: C/75368,75369,75370,76038/2025-DB Shri Jyoti Biswas; that evidently such story of conspiracy was fabricated by DRI to implicate the appellant; that as the only material evidence i.e., DVD was found to be broken within the sealed cover, is not available to connect the appellant with the alleged offence to justify any conspiracy by Shri Vikash Kumar in any stretch of imagination.