Ltd., Dadras and also Mumbai and iv M s.Enpro Speciality Chemicals Ankaleshwar, has directly resulted into evasion of import duty for imports made against them.
The said documents included the statement dated 30.8.1999 of the companycerned appraiser Shri K.Srivastava who was shown to have finally assessed the 32 shipping bills the fax letter dated 2.11.1999 from the Asst.
dismissing the writ petition.
On receipt of the detention order and the grounds of detention, the detenu addressed representations to the Central Government on 5.4.2000 which were rejected on 11.4.2000.
Further investigation made after search of the premises of these firms revealed that one more companypany, namely Knomo Exports Ltd. later changed to M s.KEL Exports Ltd. was also related to exports made by the said three firms.
Commissioner of the Customs Department and other officers borne on the shipping bills were forged suffers from number application of mind to the matter.
The credit is made available against the products exported as per the rates specified in this behalf by the Director General of Foreign Trade DGFT .
This was followed by the writ petition filed on behalf of the detenu in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by its judgment and order dated 1.12.2000.
Initially, three such firms namely, I M s.Samarth Enterprises, ii M s.Sharp Medicals, iii M s.Pragati Sales Corporation were identified.
of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue on 2nd March, 2000 in exercise of the power under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act Swarn Singh Sandhu was detained and kept in custody in Central Prision, Nasik.
In paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is stated by the detaining authority that an intelligence was received by the officers of the Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai, indicating that certain persons firms are misusing the DEPB scheme by manipulating forging the particulars of the shipping bills and obtaining the DEPB benefit from the office of the Joint DGFT, Mumbai.
In the grounds of detention companyering 35 pages the detaining authority has set out in detail the informations received from different quarters regarding misuse of the facilities provided under the Export Incentive Scheme introduced by the Govt.
The objective of the scheme was to neutralize the incidence of basic customs duty on the import companytent of the export product.
These exports were made from the port of Mumbai.
The said judgment order is under challenge in this appeal.
The detenu was a Director of Knomo Exports Ltd. renamed as M s.KEL Exports Ltd. It was further stated in the grounds of detention that investigations revealed that the aforementioned three firms have claimed the benefit of DEPB scheme against exports of various bulk companysignments of drugs companyered by 32 shipping bills.
The scheme provided for credit of duty calculated by taking into account the duty payable on the deemed import companytent used in the manufacture of the export product.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Shimla Forensic examination report of Central Forensic Laboratories, CBI, New Delhi dated 15.12.1999 relating to sample shipping bills of M s.Empire Exports and M s.Sharp Medicals.
Under the scheme all items except those appearing in the negative list of imports are allowed to be imported without payment of customs duty against the credit available under a DEPB.
The procedure specified for issue of DEPB scrips entails submission of an application to the DGFT by the exporter along with the original EP Export Promotion companyy of the shipping bill against which the exports have actually been effected and a certificate of realisation of export proceeds BRC from the respective banks.
Under the scheme, an exporter is eligible to claim credit at a specified percentage of FOB value of exports.
In companypliance with the provisions of Section 3 3 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India the grounds of detention dated 2nd March, 2000 along with the documents mentioned and relied upon therein were companymunicated to the detenu.
of India, Ministry of Commerce, called Duty Entitlement Pass Book DEPB scheme as a part of the Export Import Policy for the period 1997 2002.
This appeal, filed by special leave, by Gurdev Singh father of the detenu Swarn Singh Sandhu, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.352 of 2000, Gurdev Singh vs. Union of India Ors.,
The values have been inflated by forging the original entries in the shipping bills including the signatures of the companycerned officers as evident from the documents i to xi described in the said paragraph.
The said certificates signed by the detenu were submitted to the office of the Joint DGFT along with the companyies of the DEPB shipping bills and accordingly DEPB scrips were issued in the name of exporters on record.
In pursuance of the detention order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Govt.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave is granted.
The papers submitted to Custom House, Mumbai for verification and release of DEPB scrips revealed that one Prashant Divekar had signed as Proprietor for all the three aforesaid export firms, whereas the entire foreign exchange remittance of these exports had been received by M s.Knomo Exports Ltd. It was stated in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention that on detailed examination and verification of the 32 shipping bills against which DEPB scrips were obtained by the detenu revealed that the particulars in the shipping bills had been manipulated in respect of value, quantity and also in respect of names of the manufacturing companypanies of the drugs.
The total FOB value of the bulk drugs shown to have been exported under these 32 shipping bills amounted to Rs.29,14,59,690.00 and the said amount was adjusted against the advance remittances received by M s.Knomo Exports Ltd. It was stated in the grounds that all the 32 bank certificates of export realisation show that the total foreign exchange equivalent to total FOB value has been shown to have been received by M s.Knomo Exports Ltd. and the detenu had signed as Director on all these certificates.
At the companymencement of hearing of the case Shri A.Mohta, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the detenu has already undergone the period of detention this Court may decide the legality and validity of the Detention Order since the appellant apprehends that certain further actions may be taken on the basis of the order of detention which has spent its force by afflux of time.
