By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 29, 2017: THIS is an appeal filed in the year 2007 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai.

The appellant was not represented when the appeal was heard recently.

After hearing the AR, the CESTAT observed thus –

+ When the appellant did not fulfill the export obligation that brought it into the scope of investigation and adjudication. The investigation found that the raw material imported using the advance licences were not at all used in the manufacture of export product as there was no factory of appellant to manufacture. The location address given for manufacture was found to be false.

+ The oral evidence gathered by the investigation from the landlord established that premises was taken on rent without making any use thereof for manufacture. The statement dated 21/03/2002 of the appellant as to carrying out of manufacture was found to be totally false. Plea of shifting of the goods from the leased premises upon expiry of the lease terms was also found to be false.

+ The appellant violated EXIM Policy as well as customs law and no foreign exchange came to India due to no use of imported goods in manufacture to discharge export obligation. Object of notification was given burial death by the contumacious conduct of the appellant. The facility of manufacture declared to the DGFT was also found to be false as was discovered in the course of investigation.

+ Investigation found that the entire design of the appellant was to defraud Government Revenue and was to be enriched at the cost of the customs. The appellant has also been arrested and he disappeared to escape the prosecution. He even could not reveal whether he carried out trading or manufacturing but acted behind the back of the entire fraud. No details were provided for enquiry. Statement of appellant recorded from Tihar Jail on 12/11/2001 was found to be evasive. He was detained under COFEPOSA for his criminality.

Concluding that in view of conduct of the appellant and the fact that no manufacture was carried out using duty-free raw material, the CESTAT held that there was no considerable ground to look into the appeal further.

The appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2659-CESTAT-MUM)