Page 176 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

854 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

before going on to elucidate that -
44. The State does not crusade. Its legislative arm enacts laws that crimi-
nalize and, to secure the State from the consequences of such crime, vests
the authority to bring transgressors to book under that law in an official or
agency while laying down the boundaries of such executive authority. So it
is with officers of Customs. If the State has determined that the official or
agency should retain perpetual jurisdiction, such express conferment of
such determination cannot be called in question; a claim for such stands on
a different footing and must be subject to interpretation of nexus and intent.
If such jurisdiction appears to be circumscribed by the context of that law or
is supplanted by another law, such unfettered wherewithal to enforce is re-
pugnant to rule of law. Moral outrage is not the way of the law. Encroach-
ment upon the boundaries of another agency is not the way of the law. The
scope of the enactment determines the extent of criminality. If the law
chooses not to criminalize, the tax collector can do so only at the cost of be-
ing an outlaw.’
4. All too often, misadventures are the consequence of contrived en-
forcement of a law, intended for a particular purpose, in situations of patent un-
enforceability of that law. We do not wish to tarry further on this aspect as we
merely intend to caution that the superimposition of moral outrage and sancti-
monious adjurements that may appeal to recipients of bundled governance over
fragile logic is, nonetheless, not an embargo on exposing the situation to the
proper law for testing the propriety of enforcement.
5. It would appear from this narration -
‘1.12.2 Facts revealed during investigation the syndicated that M/s.
Norcrane were neither in the business of nor are known to be offering to
design Vessels, Rigs & plant machinery and supply drawings for their con-
struction/installation. It appeared that the impugned drawings & designs
were not supplied by Norcrane group directly, but the same name sound-
ing firm, namely NWHPL, was floated for the purpose (may be with or
without the knowledge and approval of Norcrane group) to affect those
sham imports for siphoning money abroad. In order to ascertain the Asso-
ciation of NWHPL with Norcrane, this office mailed a letter dated 19-6-2015
Norcrane group on their email address info@norcrane.com_requesting further
response with regard to their association with NWHPL. Subsequent re-
minders were also sent on 26-6-2015 & 14-7-2015 but they did not reply to
this office mail.’
in the impugned order that the proceedings were initiated against goods that had
already been cleared for home consumption as well as those for which declara-
tions contemplated in Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 was yet to be filed, on the
possible use of the ploy of import for transmitting payments to itself through a
‘front’ established in Singapore and has concluded that these allegations are true.
In taking recourse to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Import-
ed Goods) Rules, 2007, the adjudicating authority appears to be guided by the
relationship between the two for rejection of the value declared in the bills of
entry.
6. An adjudicating authority is not obliged to restrict itself to facts elic-
ited in investigation and could, subject to unchallenged expertise and availability
of wherewithal, undertake the task of filling missing gaps or for assuring itself
that the tentative conclusions, inferred from available evidence, may be confi-
dently adopted but cannot shy away from the obligation to afford opportunity
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  176