Case Law Details
Gurmeet Singh Kohli Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Delhi)
The facts of the case are the appellant is a trader of automobile parts and met one Rajat Gulati of M/s Super Trading , Kashmiri gate and through him got into the business of trading in DEPB licences for a commission. The Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs commenced investigation into DEPB licences and found that the DEPB licences sold by the appellant were based on fabricated documents showing export of goods to Bangladesh through the Land Customs Station. These fabricated licences were sold by the appellant to M/s. Whirlpool India which imported the goods against them.
It is undisputed that the appellant had sold these DEPB licences to M/s. Whirlpool India and these licences were obtained from DGFT by submitting forged documents. In his statement dated 7.1.2013, the appellant admitted to having sold these DEPB licences but said that he was not aware that they were obtained based on forged Bank Realisation Certificates. He also said that he kept no record of the licences which he sold and received commission in cash. In the subsequent statement dated 10.4.2014, he agreed that he had prepared/created forged Bank Realisation Certificates against exports and submitted them to DGFT and obtained DEPB licences and sold them.
For these reasons penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 which was upheld by the impugned order.
Evidently, the appellant has, by his role discussed above, caused fraudulently obtained DEPB certificates to be used in the Bills of Entry filed by the importer which, in our considered view, falls squarely within the scope of Section 114AA.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
