Commissioner of Customs,
Kandla Vs. M/S Essar Oil Limited & Ors  Insc 618 (7 October 2004)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K.
Thakker Arijit Pasayat, J.
These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common judgment passed
by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional
Bench, Mumbai (in short the 'CEGAT'). By the impugned judgment the CEGAT set
aside the imposition of duty, redemption fine, interest and penalty levied
under the Customs Act, 1967 (in short the 'Act') levied/imposed on respondent
no.1 M/s Essar Oil Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'), its
officers (Respondents nos. 2 to 4) and officials of the Customs Department
(Respondent nos. 5 to 7).
Backgrounds facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:
Sometime during 1997 respondent no.1 imported plants and machineries worth
Rupees 600 crores for its refinery project. These imported goods were stored in
private bonded warehouses, one of which is closed. The licences for the
warehouses were valid upto 24.11.1999.
General bond of Rs.120 crores was executed by respondent no.1 under Section
59(2) of the Act to secure payment of customs duty. Between 18 and 23.2.1999
respondent no.1 submitted 84 ex-bonds bills of entry which were assessed to
customs duty at the prevalent rate and corresponding TR-6 Challans for payment
of duty were handed over to the assessee.
On 24.2.1999 assessee-respondent no.1 wrote to ICICI Ltd. stating that there
was possibility of imposition of duty on refinery goods and requested them to
immediately release funds to avoid project cost over- run. On the same day
inter office memo was issued by Shri S.R. Aggarwal (respondent no.2) to Shri
P.R. Ashok (respondent no.3) stating that ICICI Ltd. had indicated their desire
to disburse a sum of Rs.100 crores so that the Countervailing Duty (in short
'CVD') amount to be paid before pronouncement of the Union Budget, 1999. The
memo pointed out that the necessary documentation was in process and remittance
of the funds by telegraphic transfer to the State Bank of India (SB) Jamnagar
would be done immediately thereafter. Respondent no.3 was requested to complete
the paperwork with customs authorities.
On 25.2.1999 respondent no.3 wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central
Excise Bonded Warehouse, Jamnagar, requesting him to pass necessary order for
"out of charge" for the goods concerned. This letter is of
considerable importance in the present dispute. This letter has to be
considered along with letter of same date (i.e.
25.2.1999) written by respondent no.3 to Assistant Chief Accounts Officer
(Excise & Customs) Rajkot. The controversy in the present matter basically
revolved round this document. In the first letter reference was made to the
challans issued for payment of duty on the bonded goods and the original
acknowledgement of the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer towards payment of
customs duty with applicable interest. The details of goods with relevant
challans were also enclosed. The payment was made by cheque no.1175298 dated 25.2.1999
for Rs.60,03,85,603 in favour of Assistant Chief Accounts Officer SBECNC in
line with the trade notice no.73/85, copy of which was enclosed. It was
indicated that action was being taken as per direction of Assistant
Commissioner (Technical) at Rajkot. It was further indicated that the payment
had to be made at Rajkot office due to banks strike. In the letter dated
25.2.1999 addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer, Excise and Customs, Rajkot,
it was indicated that due to banks strike on that day they were depositing the
customs duty on the goods at the regular bank. Therefore, they had enclosed
cheque no.1175298 dated 25.2.1999. A declaration was made that respondent no.1
had "sufficient bank balance" in its account in State Bank of
Saurashtra, Jamnagar on whom the cheque was drawn and same shall be honored and
cleared by the bankers "as and when presented by the concerned
office". On 25.2.1999 the application was endorsed for acceptance by the
Assistant Commissioner and were accepted and processed. Consequently, the
warehousing licence was cancelled on the strength of the cheque payment though
the goods were not physically moved from the warehouse.
After the banks strike was over, the cheque was deposited for collection at
the Rajkot, on 27.2.1999. On the same day at the close of office hour the rate
of customs duty was enhanced from nil basic duty to 5% on the Union Budget.
On 1.3.1999 respondent no.1 wrote to his bank that they were arranging for
transfer of funds from Mumbai by 2.3.1999. As the funds were not received in
the revenue accounts, respondent no.1's banker at Saurathtra prepared an inter
office memo advising appellant's bank at Rajkot that the cheque issued by
respondent no.1 had been returned unpaid. However, the memo was not sent to the
bank, as respondent no.1 wrote several letters to their banks at Jamnagar
requesting that cheque be withheld till funds were arranged by them. On
16.3.1999 finally respondent no.1 arranged funds to cover the cheque amount
which was honored and credited to the Government's account on 17.3.1999.
Investigations were carried out by various governmental agencies and
respondents 2 to 4 were arrested on 6.5.1999. Their bail application was
rejected by concerned magistrate. On 17.5.1999 the Gujarat High Court granted
bail to them on the unconditional undertaking by their counsel appearing before
the High Court that the amount of enhanced customs duty will be paid in three
instalments by 31st July, 1999. On 22.8.1999 a show-cause notice was issued to
the respondent no.1-assessee proposing to levy duty on the imported goods under
Section 15(1)(c) of the Act. It was alleged that fraud was practised by
respondent no.1 in connivance with the other respondents and an attempt was
made to defraud revenue and evade duty. Reference was made to the background
facts as highlighted above. It was also pointed out that Mr. J.K. Singh,
Director of the respondent no.1- company stated that there was no requisition
for imported goods in February, 1999. Statement of respondent no.2 recorded on
5.5.1999 showed that funds were expected to be arranged, respondent no.1
decided to make payment by cheque. Respondent no.2 admitted that discussions
were held with ICICI Ltd. on 3.2.1999. Funds were not provided by the said
financial institution and ultimately the funds were arranged from the Punjab
National Bank. Statements of Nitin Bhatt and P.R. Ashok i.e.
respondent nos. 4 and 3 respectively were recorded which, inter alia,
indicated that respondent no.1 wanted to avoid any adverse impact of the
budget. Investigation further revealed that sufficient fund was not there in
respondent no.1's account till evening of 24.2.1999. False declaration was made
regarding sufficiency of funds on 25.2.1999.
Investigation also revealed that one of the departmental officials i.e.
respondent no.6 A.K. Thaker had manipulated dates and instead of the actual
date of 26.2.1999, he had indicated that the action was taken on 25.2.1999.
Statement of Shri L. Ghosh, Chief Manager of State Bank of Saurashtra at
Jamnagar indicated that the cheque as issued by respondent no.1 was intended to
be returned to the clearing bank at Rajkot and telephonic information to this
effect was given to the Chief Manager of the bank at Rajkot. A written notice
was prepared. The same was not sent at the request of respondent no.1 and
contrary to the established practice and procedure of the bank and governing
regulations cheque was not dishonored. The instructions of State Bank of
Saurashtra Manual, inter alia, provides and requires that non- payment of clean
demand bill must be advised to the purchasing office and advice must be sent by
telegram. The advice is to be sent not later than the close of the day
following the close of the day following the presentation of the Bill. A
departure was made in the present case. The concerned Bank was requested not to
dishonour the cheque. As late as on 3rd March, 1999 oral information was given
to Customs officials about non-availability of funds. Thereafter on several
dates the assessee requested the Banks to delay action at their ends. The trade
notice referring to which letter was written to accept cheque was not
applicable to the Banks strike as the same was a pre- notified strike and was
for two days.
Statement of Mr. Rak Hashiya, of State Bank of Saurashtra, Rajkot was to the
effect that normal procedure was to return the cheque on the day it is
presented if the funds were not there. His further statement was to the effect
that he had advised N.C. Goplani that the cheque may be retained for two to three
days only after both the customs authorities and the respondent no.1 give
consent letter, failing which the cheque was to be returned. He was informed on
5.3.1999 that there was no written consent of the customs authorities. The show
cause notice referred to the correspondences between respondent no.1 and the
bankers. It was alleged that the undertaking in the letter of respondent no.1
dated 25.2.1994 clearly shows fraudulent attempt to misuse the bonafide
facilities given in terms of trade notice as the respondent no.1 was fully
aware that they had not received the funds at Jamnagar. After referring to the
various aspects the investigating authority came to conclude that the duty rate
on February 1999 was effectively nil and hence any variation could only be
upwards. Though no funds were transferred to the respondent's bank in the
evening of 24.2.1999, a letter was issued containing clear mention about
availability of funds. The accusations in essence were that there was
deliberate mis-declaration to ensure evasion from rate changes. Since the rate
of duty was enhanced prior to encashment of cheque, there was liability to pay
enhanced rate of duty. The clearance of goods was effected without payment of
appropriate duty. There was no requirement of the imported goods by respondent
no.1 which created a fiction of deemed duty payment and deemed removal, with
the full knowledge that there was non-availability of funds. There was no scope
of clearance in terms of Section 68 in the absence of duty being paid. The
cancellation of warehousing licence was obtained by fraud as duty had not been
deposited. Hence duty payable is covered under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act.
Action was taken against the customs officials i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 7 for
their alleged abatement in the action and the act of collusion as established
by manipulation of records. They had done or omitted to do acts which acts or
omissions rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Accordingly, respondent
no.1 was required to show cause as to why goods removed contrary to terms of
the permission for such removal should not be confiscated under Section 111(j),
and since goods were removed on cancellation of licence based on false
declaration without payment of duty at the rate prevalent on 17.3.1999, duty
shall not be demanded and it was proposed in addition, to levy penalty on
respondents 2 to 7 and interest on respondent no.1.
The Commissioner framed six issues. They are as follows:
(i) Whether duty could be treated to have been paid on the 25th February,
1999 (the date of presentation of the cheques by M/s. EOL) in the facts and
circumstances of the case;
(ii) The date for determination of rate of duty, and whether the Warehouse
License could be treated as cancelled as detailed in the impugned show cause
(iii) Whether the charge of evasion of duty by malafide intent of wilful
misdeclaration, suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of
duty, etc. as alleged in the show cause notice is established;
(iv) Whether the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(j) of
the Customs Act,
(v) To determine the appropriate penal clause invokable whether penalty
against the noticee M/s. EOL is leviable under Section 114 A or Section
112(a)/(b) of the Customs
(vi) The extent of involvement of the individual persons vis- `-vis evidence
on record to sustain the charge of collusion on the part of the employees of
M/s. EOL and the officers of the department as detailed in the show cause
After considering show-cause reply filed by respondent no.1 the Commissioner
Customs House, Kandla (in short 'Commissioner') confirmed the demand of duty
and also directed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. It is to be
noted that respondent no.1, inter alia, contended that there was no certainty
that the rate of duty will be enhanced and that they acted under a bona fide
belief that the funds would be available on 25.2.1996. They also claimed bona
fide error of judgment and lack of collusion with officers. The stand was not
accepted by the Commissioner. Appeals were filed before CEGAT by the present
So far as Issue no.1 is concerned, the Commissioner held that the duty could
not be treated as paid on 25.2.1999 in view of the mis- declaration about
availability of funds. The fact that funds were not available was not disclosed
till 3.3.1999, even though concerned respondents had definite and specific
knowledge. Commissioner relief upon Banks' specific instructions regarding
return of cheques in case of non-availability of funds. Reference was made to
the cheque dishonour memo which was prepared but not issued due to request of
the assessee. It was concluded that had the assessee correctly disclosed the
facts, the application dated 25.2.1999 would not have been accepted.
The CEGAT on the Issue no.1 observed that Commissioner failed to notice
about non-applicability of Trade Notice. It was held that there was finding
recorded that facility of cheque payment was not available because of false
declaration. It was concluded that duty was paid on 25.2.1999 since payment of
cheque relates back to the presentation and the cheque was not dishonored.
With regard to Issue no.2, it was observed by the Commissioner that
cancellation of warehousing license was obtained by fraud.
Reference was made to the undertaking given before the High Court accepting
liability to pay duty. Consequently it was held that there was no cancellation
under Section 68. Therefore, provisions of Section 15(1)(c) were applicable.
CEGAT held that as duty shall be treated to have been paid on 25.2.1999,
requirements of Section 68 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b)
and not Section 15(1)(c) was applicable.
As regards Issue no.3, Commissioner held that charge of evasion of duty by
mala fide intent, wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts was clearly
CEGAT held that there was no willful mis-declaration, no evasion or short
levy. The declaration was held to have been made under bona fide belief.
Answering Issue no.4, Commissioner held that goods were liable for
confiscation under Section 111(j) as deemed removal was contrary to the
permission and fraudulent intention was clearly established.
However, redemption fine of Rs.20 crores was imposed.
CEGAT held that there could not be any confiscation as goods had been
cleared under a permission.
As regards applicability of Section 114A, under Issue no.5, it was held said
provision was not invokable. However, penalty of Rs.10 crores was imposed under
Commissioner held that respondents 2 to 7 were involved in the fraud, in
answering Issue no.6. They were held liable to penalty under Section 112(a).
CEGAT set aside the penalties holding that respondent nos.2 to 7 had not
committed any breach.
So far as Issue no.3 is concerned, in view of the operative portion of the
order of the Commissioner was to the effect that the goods valued at
Rs.599,26,00046 was to be confiscated under Section 111(j) of the Act as the
imported goods except good worth Rs.73.93 crores which were covered by corporate
guarantee. Redemption fine of Rs.20 crores in view of confiscation was imposed.
Total demand of Rs.96,26,91.711/- was confirmed under Section 28(1) proviso of
the Act as also in terms of statement made on behalf of respondent no.1 before
the Gujarat High Court on 17.5.1999. The duty was worked out on the basis of
computation in the show cause notice. Penalty of rupees ten crores was imposed
on respondent no.1 under Section 112(b) of the Act.
Penalty of rupees one crore was levied on respondent no.2 under Section
112(a). Penalty of rupees 25 lakhs and rupees 10 lakhs was imposed on
respondents 3 and 4 respectively under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Penalty of rupees 5 lakhs was imposed on Shri A.C. Sharma, Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise. Rupees 50,000/- and rupees 25,000/- were
imposed as penalty respectively on customs officials i.e. S.P.
Chaudhary and Shri K.N. Thakar under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Recovery of interest leviable under Section 17(2) and Section 28AB of the
Act was directed. Direction was given that deposits made towards duty were to
be adjusted against duty and interest liability as determined. As noted above
appeals were filed before CEGAT by the present respondents. Their basic stand
was that Section 15(1)(c) had no application and it was Section 15(1)(b) of the
Act which applied.
It was submitted that when the cheque has been cleared and honored payment
had to be treated to have been made on the date on which the cheque was handed
over to the authority. There was no fraudulent intention involved. Respondent
no.1 and its officials acted bona fide on the assurance given by ICICI Ltd.
Negotiations for funds were going on since long. Therefore, the order of the
Commissioner is not tenable.
The revenue supported the order of the Commissioner. As noted above CEGAT
held that the Commissioner had not recorded any finding regarding
non-applicability of the trade notice. There was no findings recorded by the
Commissioner that the cheque payment facility was not available because of false
declaration. The Commissioner only decided the issue as to what constitutes the
date of payment. Since the cheque was honored it was to be held that date of
payment was on 25.2.1999 though, in fact, it was cleared on 17.3.1999.
Requirements of Section 58 were complied with and, therefore, Section 15(1)(b)
was applicable and not Section 15(1)(c) as held by the Commissioner. There was
no willful declaration and the declaration about availability of funds was made
under bona fide belief. The direction regarding confiscation was set aside. The
penalties on respondent no.1 and its officials and the customs officials were
set aside. It is to be noted that the Tribunal referred to Rules 79 and 80 of
the Central Treasury Rules (in short 'Treasury Rules') to conclude that when
the cheque is honored is the date on which cheque was received by the concerned
authorities is the date of payment.
In support of the appeals learned Additional Solicitor General submitted
that the Tribunal has lightly brushed aside the various points which had been
taken note of by the Commissioner. Whether the date to be reckoned is the date
of receipt of cheque by the department though it is cleared subsequently is
really of no consequence in view of the fact that fraudulent mis-declaration
was made about availability of funds, with the clear knowledge that funds were
not available. Any act based on fraud vitiates the entire action taken. The
CEGAT also failed to notice that the intention of respondent no.1 and its
officials is clearly borne out from the fact that they managed to obtain
declaration from respondent no.6 as if the documents were cleared on 25.2.1999,
when the statements of the concerned witnesses clearly show that it was done on
26.2.1999. The proved manipulation of records further strengthened the
department's view. It was pointed out that relevant factual aspects placed by
the department before the CEGAT had not been considered. On the other hand it
recorded some findings which were based on conjectures and/or surmises. The effect
of fraudulent action and the mis-declaration were not considered. On the
contrary it was observed that there was no mis-declaration and a bona fide
mistake had been committed because of the assurance given by the financial
institutions for providing funds. The established position is of manipulation
of records to show as if action was taken on 25.2.1999, when in reality the
action was taken on 26.2.1999. It not only kept out of consideration the fact
that without sufficient funds cheque was given to the customs officials, but
also gave a clean chit to the officials on purported ground of absence of
practice prevailing in the division. It was, argued that the Tribunal's
judgment suffers from non- consideration of relevant materials, consideration
of irrelevant materials and recording of findings contrary to the materials on
record both on issue of fact and law.
In response, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 submitted that the declaration, if any, made about availability
of funds was really not relevant in view of the Act, more particularly,
Sections 17, 46, 58 and 55. With reference to sub-section (2) of Section 47 it
was submitted that consequences for non-payment under Section 46 were laid
down. Section 72 deals with the situation when the importer is unable to pay
and consequentially interest becomes chargeable. This made the position clear
that only consequence of non- payment of duty in time is levy of interest.
The show cause notice itself indicated that the goods were removed on
25.2.1999. There was no wilful mis-declaration. There was a special procedure
available when the banks were on strike. Rule 79(1)(b) of the Treasury Rules
clearly indicate the date which is to be reckoned for ascertaining the date on
which amount is treated to be paid. The mis-declaration aspect is relevant only
for the purpose of Section 28 and for considering whether extended period of
limitation applies. That issue is not relevant in the present case and only
issue is whether Section 15(1)(b) or Section 15(1)(c) is applicable. A factual
finding has been arrived at by CEGAT to hold that there was no wilful
Residually it was submitted that for any unintentional breach penalty is not
to be levied. The view of the Tribunal is a possible view and, therefore, no
interference is called for. Similar arguments were advanced by respondent nos.
2 to 4 and the custom authorities (respondents 5 to 7). It was submitted that
there was no question of any abetment and/or collusion.
The submissions need careful consideration. It is to be noted that the plea
that in view of special statutory prescriptions reference to the trade notice
was unnecessary does not appear to have been pleaded or considered by the CEGAT
which proceeded only to determine the issue as to on which date the payment
shall be reckoned to have been made. The entire case of the revenue was built
around the alleged fraudulent acts of respondent no.1 and its officials and the
customs officials. According to the revenue it was clearly a case where the
declaration was done with fraudulent intention, with planned design to evade
duty. Several aspects were highlighted to show that the respondent no.1 and its
officials were acting with fraudulent intention. The Tribunal did not even
consider the effect of those acts.
By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from
any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards
the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two
elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other
than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or
immovable or of money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic
or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost
always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where
there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to
the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi
Administration (1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550).
A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of
securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in
order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
(See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 (1) SCC 1).
"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and
justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words,
which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative
stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It
is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed,
innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man
into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he
knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which
the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court
is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive
the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction
void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a
deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable
principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by
the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. (2003 (8) SCC 319).
"Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in
any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who
exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy hearted man and trap him into
snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's
Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined
as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an
advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy
forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary,
"fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the
purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable
thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a
matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal
deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest
artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is
deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the
material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Indian Contract
defines "fraud" as act committed by a party to a contract with intent
to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out
of deliberate active role of representator about a fact, which he knows to be
untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it
to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with
knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry and Ors. v.
Peek (1886-90) All ER 1 what constitutes "fraud" was described thus:
(All ER p. 22 B-C) "fraud" is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its
truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false".
But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in
Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial
transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in Administrative Law. It
has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secretary of State for
Home Deptt. (1983) 1 All ER 765, that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of
common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation of
statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable
transaction to evade the provisions of a statute.
"If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court
of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the
operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and
beyond its scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round
abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping
the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting
subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant
considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administration law, as it
is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception
committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke
exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal.
It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have
been exercised. The misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions
provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which the power can be
exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be
disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions
non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. "In a
contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the
information necessary to avoid bad bargain. In public law the duty is not to
deceive. (See Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, (1992 (1) SCC 534).
In that case it was observed as follows:
"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any
civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who
exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into
snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's
Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act
or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage
against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as
being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as
an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in
reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender
a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or
by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another
so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary,
it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain
unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of
England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a
misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in
fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed by a party
to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even
otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a
fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee
by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent
must be of the fact with knowledge that it was false.
In a leading English case Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) ALL ER Rep 1: (1889) 14
AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes fraud was described thus : (All Er p.
22 B-C) 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has
been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii)
recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'." This aspect of the
matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal
(2002 (1) SCC 100) Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education (2003 (8) SCC 311), Ram Chandra Singh's case (supra) and
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another (2004 (3) SCC 1).
Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the
court. (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996 (3) SCC 310)
and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).
"Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the
other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response
to the conduct of the former either by words or letter.
Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as
observed in Ram Preeti Yadav's case (supra).
In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at
pages 712 & 713, "No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can
be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.
Fraud unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ
observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high
a degree of solemnity. (page 722) It is not open to respondent no.1 to contend
that trade notice is of no consequences when the permission to pay by cheque on
out-station bank was given with reference to the trade notice. The effect of
the manipulation of records to show as if action was taken on 25.2.1999 and not
on 26.2.1999 was also not considered by the CEGAT in the proper perspective.
Rules 79 and 80 of the Treasury Rules were relied upon overlooking the
effect of the Central Government Account (Receipt and Payment Rules, 1983) (in
short 'Receipt Rules') which clearly stipulates as to the relevant date of
receipt. Rule 20 is relevant in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent
referred to Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Central Excise
Rules'). It was submitted that a Full Bench of CEGAT considered effect of said
Rule 8 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -1 v. Genus Overseas
Electronics Ltd. (2003 (155) ELT 541) and held that due date was the date of
payment by cheque even if the cheque is encashed later. Rule 8 really operates
in different field together. It has nothing to do with date of receipt. It only
provides the mode of payment. It does not and cannot wipe out effect of Rule 20
of the Receipt rules. Otherwise Rule 20 will become dead letter. We need not go
into that question in detail because clearly the Rules 70 and 80 of the
Treasury Rules are not applicable as they are applicable to situations
indicated in Rule 1(a), and have no application to present case.
Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for respondent no.1 on Derry's
case (supra). It was pleaded that respondent no.1 had acted with reasonable
belief about availability of fund. Merely because funds were not actually
released, it cannot be held to be a mis-declaration.
It is to be noted that it has to be factually in each case concluded as to
whether fraud is established. It would depend on the facts of each case. In the
present case even if respondent no.1's stand is accepted at the most there was
an assurance to provide funds. The same by no stretch of imagination, equated
with funds already available. There is a gulf of difference between assurance
to provide financial assistance and in reality providing finance assistance. In
the latter case only there is availability of funds.
The word "reasonable" signifies "in accordance with
reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact; whether a
particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given
situation. It is often said that "an attempt to give a specific meaning to
the word "reasonable" is trying to count what is not number and
measure what is not space". The author of "Words and Phrases"
(Permanent Edition) has quoted from In re Nice & Schreiber 123 F.987, 988
to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says, "the expression
"reasonable" is a relative term, and the facts of the particular
controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes
reasonable can be determined".
From the factual scenario described it is clear that respondent no.1 was
aware that there was no fund available. In fact, from 3.3.1999 it accepted the
position that there was no fund available and was asking for time to arrange
funds. This according to us clearly indicated a fraudulent motive and the
declaration given was certainly mis-declaration. Therefore, the CEGAT was not
right in its conclusions about inapplicability of Section 51(1)(c) to the facts
of the case.
The demand of duty and order of confiscation by the Commissioner is clearly
So far the respondents 2 to 4 are concerned, the Commissioner's findings
were as follows:
(1) Respondent No.2- Sri S.R. Agarwal gave instructions from time to time
for clearance of all imported goods before pronouncement of Union Budget 1999.
There was no requisition from Essar Projects Ltd. (in short EPL) or the
contractors for such goods. Incharge of finance portfolio was fully aware of
the financial status of the assessee. In spite of his personal knowledge he
instructed respondent No.3 (Sri P.R.
Ashok) to complete the formalities. The intention to defraud is apparent
from his fax message dated 24.2.1999 instructing to clear the goods at the
current duty rate and not to expose to any change in the budget. His mala fide
intents is apparent from the letters addressed by him to the Chief Commissioner
and DRI authorities wherein he had significantly suppressed the fact that
cheque had been tendered on the basis of a false declaration regarding
availability of funds. All along he stuck to the plea that mere late
realization was of no consequence and since cheque was not dishonored duty at
post-budget rates cannot be levied.
(2) Respondent No.3-Sri P.R. Ashok was fully aware of the fact about
non-availability of funds. But he made a false declaration about sufficiency of
funds. The cheque was not on a Bank at Jamnagar, but at Rajkot. This was a part
of a well planned plan to perpetuate fraud.
(3) Respondent No.4-Sri Nitin Bhat was in charge of Customs clearance
related work. In his letters to the Customs authorities he clearly stated about
availability of funds when moving for cancellation of warehouse licence. He
also played active part in ensuring that the Bank does not return the cheque.
In view of the aforesaid, it was concluded by the Commissioner that in
respect of the imported goods the aforesaid three persons have done or omitted
to do acts which acts or omissions have rendered such goods liable for
confiscation and they had also abetted in acts which they knew or had reasons
to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 112 (j) of
the Act and rendered themselves liable to action under Section 112 (a) of the
Act. Accordingly penalties as noted above were levied on the respondents 2, 3
As regards the Departmental Officials (respondents 5 to 7) the Commissioner
took note of several factors.
(1) As regards Sri S.P. Chaudhuri it was noted that notwithstanding specific
direction of Superintendent (Tech), Jamnagar to the effect that date of
cancellation should be taken to be the date of "actual removal of goods
from warehouse". It was concluded that Sri Chaudhuri failed to ensure
"actual removal" for the purpose of cancellation of warehouse
licence. All the three officers failed to take note that physical removal of
approximately 20,000 Mts. Cargo covered under 84 Bills of Entry from the bonded
warehouse could not have been possible in a short span of one day. The officers
acted in undue haste and resorted to backdating as accepted by them in their
statements. It was noted that the three officers were located far apart from
Therefore, processing the files at various stages and/or places on the same
day is not practicable. The sequence of processing files confirmed the
backdating of documents which was admitted by the officers. The prime
responsibility for scrutinizing the relevant documents was on Sri A.C. Sharma
who failed to do that. The other officers committed acts of omission under the
overall guidance and supervision of Sri Sharma. The plea for protection under
Section 155 of the Act was rejected. Penalty under Section 112(a) in respect of
each of the officers was levied.
CEGAT did not consider the aberrations highlighted by the Commissioner and
in a very cryptic manner dealt with the issues. No plausible reason has been
indicated as to why the allegations which are quite serious in nature and the
conclusions in relation thereto recorded by the Commissioner were not to be
maintained. Only an abrupt conclusion was reached that Sri Thakur and Sri Chaudhuri
had absolutely no connection with the acceptance of cheques. There was not even
any reference to the allegations regarding accepted backdating or acting
contrary to specific directions. Sri Sharma was given a clean chit in view of
the finding recorded about the date on which receipt of payment has to be
taken. Here again the allegations were not considered in the proper
perspective. The findings regarding deemed removal are really inconsequential
in the present dispute as the very foundation for removal was based on
established fraud. Therefore, it is not necessary in the present dispute to go
into the question regarding effect of deemed removal.
The manipulative roles of respondents 2 to 7 have been clearly established.
They were clearly active participants in the well-planned deception and
fraudulent acts leading to evasion of duty. They had played major roles in the
whole game of fraud and deception. There was clearly willful disregard and
deliberate defiance of statutory provisions. Levy of penalty is clearly
warranted. Impugned order of CEGAT is set aside and order of Commissioner is
The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.