Page 114 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

336 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Court in the said order are germane and relevant for deciding the present appeal
and same are being extracted hereinbelow :
“4. The importer M/s. Anurag Trading Company, Kanpur had used
forged documents purportedly issued by the Ordnance Equipment Factory,
Kanpur. Director of the respondent company had admitted that the exemp-
tion certificate was not signed by the General Manager of the Ordnance
Equipment Factory, Kanpur and as per notification, the said certificate
should be issued by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the
Government of India in the Ministry of Defence.
5. The findings recorded both by the Commissioner of Customs (General)
in the order dated 12th May, 2015 and the order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal is primarily factual. The Commissioner of Customs, after examin-
ing the factual matrix had concluded though the respondent had failed to
discharge its duties and responsibilities properly, yet a harsher punishment
was not justified. The respondent’s director had professed that they had
been dealing with M/s. Anurag Trading Company, Kanpur since 2003, they
had merely processed the documents and forwarded the same to the cus-
toms authority. It was the obligation of the customs authorities to examine
applicability and satisfaction of the condition of the exemption notification
and genuineness of the documents submitted by the importer. While exam-
ining the documents, it did not strike them and there was no reason for
them to suspect that the exemption certificate was not signed by the compe-
tent authority or that it was forged. Thus, they were unaware and not in-
volved in forgery of the documents. They were also duped and were vic-
tims.
6. By our order dated 17th November, 2017, the appellant was asked to
clarify when departmental action was taken against the officers of the de-
partment, who accepted the certificate. Customs officers had also accepted
the documents without suspecting foul play and notwithstanding that the
document was not signed by the approved officer.
7. Today, during the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant
has handed over a copy of the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner
(Legal) stating that no action appears to have been taken against the officers
of the department, though statements of 11 officers were recorded. The rea-
son was that nothing could be found to establish mala fide intention of the
officers and their connivance.
8. The Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) had also investigated the issue of
bogus exemption certificate. They have not charge-sheeted the respondent. As per
the charge-sheet, placed on record, FIR under Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed
against Mr. Shyam Mehrotra, Proprietor of M/s. Anurag Trading Company, Kan-
pur and Mr. Anand Mehrotra, Manager and Authorized Signatory of M/s. Anu-
rag Trading Company, Kanpur and the proprietorship concern. CBI after investi-
gating role and involvement of the respondent and found that the CHA (the re-
spondent) had received a copy of the bill of exchange with zero customs duty duly
signed by the then Custom officer. The CBI has also stated in the charge-sheet that
the respondent CHA had retained photocopies of the said bill of exchange for its of-
fice records and had forwarded the original copies of the same along with his bill to
the importer for getting payments - thus clearly implying that the CHA had per-
formed its part of the duties and no role in the forging of the bill of exchange. The

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  114