Page 21 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] INDEX - 1st June, 2020 xix
PENALTY :
— Customs - Availment of ineligible drawback by claiming wrong
classification for Ductile iron castings - Particulars regarding Tariff item
classification of export product not furnished by applicant in Shipping
Bills and other export documents - Applicant firm failed to make true
declaration and thus contravened provisions of Section 50(2) of Customs
Act, 1962 read with Rule 12(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and
Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - But for intervention and painstaking
investigation by Officers of Customs Intelligence Unit, Coimbatore
ineligible duty drawback erroneously sanctioned by Department would
have gone unnoticed therefore act of applicant attracts penalty under
Customs Act, 1962 - However, in view of full and true disclosure of
additional duty liability, and co-operation extended during investigation
and proceedings before Settlement Commission, case fit for extending
partial immunity from penalty to applicant - Section 50(2) of Customs
Act, 1962 read with Rule 12(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and
Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 — In Re : Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd. (Sett. Comm.) . . 771
— on smuggling of silver of foreign marking imposable - See under
SMUGGLING ................................... 724
— under FERA - Seizure of Indian currency - No evidence or material placed
on record showing that appellant received any amount by order or on
behalf of any person resident outside India - Neither the Adjudicating
Authority (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate) nor the appellate
authority (Special Director, Appeals) applied their minds on the question
whether the statement made by Ashish Jain is voluntary in view of its
retraction on the very next day - Tribunal although accepted that
statement made by Ashish Jain had no evidentiary value and yet upheld
the Appellate Order - Statement of Ashish Jain not to be relied upon
having been retracted on the very next day and being very vague and
bereft of any particulars, inasmuch as, it did not name or describe any
person from whom funds had been received and whom the said funds
had been distributed to - Statement also not corroborated by other
material - Consequently, appellant could not be held guilty for violation
of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,
1973 on the sole basis of such statement - Confiscation of the amount of `
7,95,000 from the office of the appellant unsustainable and liable to be
returned to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
as per Rule 8 of Foreign Exchange Management (Encashment of Draft,
Cheque, Instrument and Payment of Interest) Rules, 2000 — Manak Kala v.
Union of India (Del.) ................................... 701
Policy Interpretation Committee under Foreign Trade Policy, scope of - See
under FTP 2004-2009 ................................ 625
Power of Commissioner (Appeals) - Remand powers - Power to remand
case back to original stands withdrawn with effect from 11-5-2001 vide
Finance Act, 2001 - Commissioner (Appeals) authorized to act as
Adjudicating Authority and obliged to pass necessary orders if order
passed by original Adjudicating Authority not legal and proper -
Commissioner (Appeals) directed to decide classification in respect of
Shipping Bills remanded back to adjudicating authority - Section 35A of
Central Excise Act, 1944 — In Re : DCS International Trading Pvt. Ltd. (G.O.I.) ..... 740
Procedural lapse not a ground for denial of export rebate - See under
REBATE ....................................... 745
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  21