Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2007 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 533 - AT - CustomsEXIM Policy - Import of goods under advance license - Beta Napthol and Aniline Oil - duty free - violation of conditions of Notification - export of goods covered by shipping bills - HELD THAT:- We find that the shipping bills giving the description of the product exported and the details of the advance licence against which the export was sought to be made and details of raw material used in the export consignments were filed by the appellants and the shipping bills were passed by the Customs authorities. The shipping bills related of the goods to the description specified as export obligation. The fact that there is a long gap between the date of import of the raw materials duty free and the date of export and the further fact that the value mentioned in the invoice is higher than the job charges paid by the appellants is not sufficient to hold that the conditions of the relevant notifications have been violated, particularly when identical pattern has been adopted in respect of other exports which have been logged by JNPT Customs as well as by Bombay Port Customs themselves. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal’s orders in the case of Dolphin Drugs Pvt. Ltd.[1999 (8) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MADRAS] holding that as long as the export obligation was fulfilled within the time allowed to the licensee or within the period extended by the DGFT authorities, there is no violation of condition of Notification and the Tribunal’s order in the case of Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2006 (7) TMI 371 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] holding that it is immaterial whether material imported duty free was first used for domestic clearances of final products in the manufacture of which the import material was used, and exports were made later on, or vice versa are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, we accept the appellant’s contention that they were entitled to logging of exports under the two advance licences in question, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
|