Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Shri Subhash Pandey vs Indore on 12 November, 2018 cites

Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011

The Appellants merely followed the same procedure which were being followed in past at these ICDs. The predecessor officers were let off on the ground that they handled less number of consignments as compared to Appellants. This analogy adopted by the adjudicating authority is erroneous. The exports proceeds were realized by the exporter in case of sanctioned drawback and hence there is no reason to hold them responsible as held in case of C.C Air Cargo (Export) Vs. Sam Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (288) ELT 418 (TRI - DEL). There is no evidence that the Appellants knew Shri Kirt Shrimankar as benami exporter. There is no evidence of Appellants receiving any favour from Shri Kirt Shrimankar or any other. The Ld. Counsel relies upon following judgments in support of his contention:
Competition Commission of India Cites 25 - Cited by 400 - Full Document

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (India) P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export), ... on 17 April, 2008

6. The Ld. Senior Counsel, Dr. Samir Chakraborty, appearing for Shri S. Chattraj, submits that the evidences of call records between Shri Chattraj, attending marriage ceremony of Kirit Shrimankar's son at Mumbai and availing flight tickets for the self and his family, staying in hotel at expenses of Shri Kirt Shrimankar cannot ipso facto leads to conclusion that the Appellant was involved in alleged overvaluation of export goods along with the exporters. That it is only an allegation that he was entertained at guest house of Kirit Shrimankar (Main Noticee) whereas there is no evidence of same. The DRI/Department has not brought on record the transcript of the phone calls between Shri Kirit Shrimankar and subject appellant to support the allegations made against the appellant. He relies upon Tribunal's order in case of Shafeek P.K. Vs. Commr. of Customs 2015 (325) ELT 199 (T) and Khemani Purshottam Mohandas Vs. CC 2017 (354) ELT 275 (T) to show that in absence of any transcript of alleged conversation, the appellant cannot be penalised. He also submits that none of the purported findings leads to evidence of any 6 wrongdoing by the Appellant. (No. 6) That, the shipping bills were provisionally assessed at the time of exports, samples were drawn and sent to Textiles Committee, Mumbai for testing of export samples. It was only after receipt of test report on the exported samples and realization of sale proceeds of exports; the drawback was sanctioned or other export benefits were given to the exporter. None of the documents/ evidences contradicting the above facts has been brought on record. He also points out that the undervaluation allegation is based upon the report of the expert valuer Shri Bipin Suri and Shri Jerry John. However, there is no aversion in show cause notice as to how both these persons are expert valuers. It was also impressed upon that there is no professional qualification of these persons or their recognition from any institute or even the customs department. Further, as per Ld. Sr. Advocate there is nothing on record to show the said persons are experts in textiles. That only on the basis of letters given by the said persons that they are having more than 25 years of experience, the show cause notice has accepted the same. Ld. Advocate further submits that in case of called back consignments under Shipping Bill No. 400614 and 400615 both dt. 18.05.2013, the Consulate General of India at Dubai had given a report that the value declared by the importer at Dubai was only Rs. US$ 11465.55 equivalent at Rs. 6,22,664/-,but this report was itself rejected by the DRI authorities and they redetermined the value of the subject export goods at Rs. 7 49,50,137/- which is nearly 8 times higher than value declared by the Dubai Importer. No evidence of export of like goods has been brought on record. Therefore, the redetermined value is itself conclusive evidence that no reliance can be placed upon the report of Consulate General, the ld. Sr. Advocate states that according to him there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Appellant, and hence no penalty is imposable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1