TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Shri N. Anand, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is seen that the appellants imported Silk free of duty under the Advance Licensing Scheme with the condition for fulfilment of export obligation. It is on record that the appellant obtained quantity in excess of their requirement for fulfilling export obligation. In other words, a part of the quantity of silk imported was not utilized for fulfilment of export obligation. This has been confirmed by the JDGFT also. The goods were originally imported during October 1997 to April 1998. At the time of import of the goods, the appellants executed bond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition of Notification and, therefore, the finding that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) cannot be sustained. 5.2 On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the appellants imported goods free of duty under Advance Licensing Scheme in terms of the Customs Notification 30/97-Cus., which has been mentioned in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. In the last paragraph, it is said that the fact that the goods in the present case were released by extending the benefit of Notification 30/97-Cus. cannot be disputed. Therefore it is clear that there is an obligation on the part of the appellant after import of the goods to use them only for manufacture of products, which are to be exported. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een adjusted with some differential amount due from the party. The appellant has to pay the amount. 5.3 As regards the fine and penalty, the following case-laws make it clear that once the normal rate of duty has been paid by the appellant, there is no question of invoking the non-fulfilment of post-import condition for imposition of fine and penalty. The following case-laws support the view. (i) Steel Authority of India Limited v. CC, Visakhapatnam - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.- Bang.); (ii) Rajyalakshmi Labs Ltd. v. CC CE, Hyderabad-II - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Bang.) In view of the above observations, we confirm the duty payment and set aside the fine and penalty. 5.4 As regards the interest, the same shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
